NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday criticised Tamil Nadu governor RN Ravi, saying that a governor cannot withhold assent to Bills passed by the state assembly or use an absolute veto or pocket veto.
The court said the governor acted against the law by not approving 10 Bills that were passed again by the assembly after being returned earlier. The court declared these Bills as passed.
“Governor must give assent to a bill when a bill is presented to him after re consultation in state assembly and he can only refuse assent when the bill is different. Action of governor to reserve the 10 bills for the president is illegal and arbitrary, and thus the action is set aside. All actions taken by governor thereto for the 10 bills are set aside. The 10 bills shall be deemed to be clear from the date it was re presented to the governor,” the Court said.
A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said the governor did not act in good faith. They pointed out that the Bills were kept pending by the governor for a long time and then sent to the President shortly after the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Punjab governor’s case, which had made it clear that governors cannot withhold assent by simply not taking any action on Bills.
The apex court was delivering judgment on petition filed by the Tamil Nadu government against governor RN Ravi’s refusal to grant assent to several bills passed by the state legislative assembly, including those concerning the appointment of vice chancellors to state universities.
The judgment written by Justice Pardiwala said that the Constitution does not allow for an “absolute veto” or “pocket veto.” According to Article 200 of the Constitution, the governor has three options when a bill is presented—grant assent, withhold assent, or reserve the bill for the President. The Court clarified that a bill can be reserved for the President only the first time it is presented.
“Neither pocket veto or absolute veto is there in the constitutional scheme behind article 200.. this article 200 uses “shall declare” so that there is no scope of inaction and the governor has to adopt one of three courses available to him. Governor cannot sit on bills and excercise pocket veto over them,” the SC said.
The Supreme Court said the governor’s action of not giving assent to 10 Bills — with some pending since January 2020 — and then sending them to the President after they were passed again by the State Legislature was “illegal and erroneous” and should be set aside. Any step taken by the governor after that was also set aside.
In its order, the court also fixed time limits for governors to act on Bills:
- If the governor agrees with the Bill, a decision must be made within one month.
- If the governor wants to return the Bill for reconsideration, it must be done within three months.
- If the Bill is to be sent to the President, that must also happen within three months.
The court said that if a governor does not follow this timeline, their decision can be challenged in court.
The court said a governor should follow the Constitution and respect the decision of the state assembly, not act based on political reasons.
Quoting B R Ambedkar, the court said, “However good a constitution may be, it is sure to turn out bad because those who are called to work it happen to be a bad lot. However bad a constitution may be, it may turn out to be good if those who are called to work it happen to be a good lot.”
