The court said that the Governor could not act arbitrarily. The phrase “as soon as possible” imposed a constitutional obligation to act within a reasonable timeframe. In an unprecedented move, the court set a timeline for governors to act on bills.
Published Apr 08, 2025 | 1:06 PM ⚊ Updated Apr 08, 2025 | 1:06 PM
Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin and Governor RN Ravi.
Synopsis: The Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment on Tuesday, saying governors do not have the power to sit indefinitely on a Bill presented by the state Assembly. While considering the 10 Bills submitted to Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi as cleared, the court also set a timeline for governors to deal with the Bills.
In an unprecedented move, the Supreme Court on Tuesday, 8 April, said state governors do not have the power to sit indefinitely on a Bill — in violation of the Constitution — forwarded by the Legislative Assembly.
Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan made the observation while declaring as unconstitutional Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi withholding 10 Bills the state Legislative Assembly had passed.
Quoting Dr BR Ambedkar, the court said, “However good a Constitution may be, if those who are tasked with its implementation are not good, it will prove to be bad”. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to the Constitution in both spirit and action.
The apex court also said the Bills “shall be deemed to be clear”.
“[The] Action of Governor to reserve the 10 Bills for President is illegal and arbitrary and thus the action is set aside. All actions taken by the 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,” Bar and Bench reported the court as saying.
The Tamil Nadu government had approached the Supreme Court whenever the governor’s actions obstructed the functioning of the state. In this instance, more than 10 Bills passed by the state Assembly were left pending by the governor without either granting assent or returning them for reconsideration.
Subsequently, the state filed writ petitions in the Supreme Court seeking appropriate directions.
The bench of Justices Parthivala and Mahadevan heard the matter over four days, concluding the arguments on 10 February.
Tamil Nadu argued that the governor did not possess any independent authority. He was bound by the advice and recommendations of the Council of Ministers.
Dr Ambedkar clearly stated in the Constituent Assembly that a governor cannot act contrary to the decisions of an elected government.
Despite clear judicial pronouncements that the authority rests with the elected representatives, the governor had been returning Bills with suggestions for amendments and, in some cases, forwarding them to the President without making any decision.
The state argued that such actions were clear overreach and misuse of constitutional powers.
Attorney General R Venkataramani, who appeared for the governor, said the Raj Bhavan was empowered to send a Bill to the President at any stage.
The governor’s role ended once it was forwarded to the President, and it was the President who must make a decision.
The governor withheld assent to a Bill related to the appointment of university vice-chancellors because it sought to remove powers vested in him.
The bench raised several critical constitutional questions. It sought to know the extend to which a governor could exercise discretion under Article 200, and whether the governor could act in an entirely independent capacity.
It further asked if the governor was a “rubber stamp” or a constitutional authority with boundaries.
A question was also asked on whether the governor could forward a Bill to the President after the Assembly had re-introduced it for a second time after being returned by the governor.
The court further asked if the governor was allowed to delay decision-making indefinitely, or whether he was bound by the term “as soon as possible” in Article 200.
It also asked if the governor has to act solely on the advice of the Council of Ministers, or if could exercise individual judgment. If the latter, to what extent can courts intervene?
The court noted that under Article 200, a governor has only three options when a Bill is presented:
The governor could not act arbitrarily, the court said. The phrase “as soon as possible” imposed a constitutional obligation to act within a reasonable timeframe.
The apex court also said the governor did not have the power to sit indefinitely on a Bill. Doing so violated the Constitution.
If a Bill was returned and then reintroduced by the Assembly without any material changes, the governor cannot reserve it for the President’s consideration. The only exception could be if the reintroduced Bill was substantially different.
The court stated that the governor’s actions in referring the 10 Bills to the President were not just procedurally incorrect but also a clear constitutional violation. These actions were declared illegal and must be nullified.
The court also set a timeline for governors to handle the Bills.
Once presented, the governor must make a decision (assent, return, or refer to the President) on the Bill within one month.
If the governor chose to return or refer the Bill contrary to the Cabinet’s advice, that decision must be made within a maximum of three months.
The court emphasised that a governor was constitutionally bound to act on the advice of the state’s Council of Ministers. Even if the governor has been granted certain discretionary powers, those powers must not be exercised in a way that undermines the Constitution.
Recalling Dr Ambedkar’s warning, the court noted that even the finest Constitution could be rendered ineffective if those entrusted with its implementation acted in bad faith.
The court strongly criticised the governor’s conduct, stating that he should act as a guardian of the Constitution, not as a hurdle to the functioning of a democratically-elected government.
Responding to the verdict, Chief Minister MK Stalin told the state Assembly that the Supreme Court had delivered a historic judgment.
“In this Legislative Assembly, we had passed several important Bills and sent them to the Hon’ble Governor for assent. Instead of granting assent, the Governor returned them. In response, we passed those Bills once again and sent them back,” he recalled.
The chief minister said the government approached the Supreme Court after the governor delayed granting assent a second time after the Legislative Assembly had passed the Bills a second time, despite “the Constitution mandates” it.
“Today, accepting the arguments put forth by the Tamil Nadu Government, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has delivered a historic verdict, declaring that the Governor’s withholding of assent was unconstitutional and that the Bills should be deemed to have received assent,” he said.
“This landmark judgment is not just a victory for Tamil Nadu, but a major triumph for all state governments across India. It reinforces the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam’s (DMK’s) core principle of “State Autonomy within a Federal Framework” — a philosophy for which Tamil Nadu continues to fight and in which Tamil Nadu continues to prevail,” Stalin added.
Senior counsels Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Mukul Rohatgi, Rakesh Dwivedi, and P Wilson represented Tamil Nadu in the court.
Incidentally, the Supreme Court on 24 November 2023 asked the then-Kerala Governor Arif Mohammad Khan’s office to look into its order relating to the inaction of the Punjab Governor on Bills passed by the state legislature.
The order issued to the Punjab Governor said that the “Governor is not at liberty to withhold his action on the Bills which have been placed before him” for his assent and cannot veto the functioning of the legislative domain.
Heading a bench hearing a plea by the Kerala government on the Governor sitting on Bills passed by the Assembly, Chief Justice DY Chandrachud asked Khan’s office to look into its order on the Punjab Governor that holds that the powers entrusted to the Governor could not be taken recourse to thwart the normal course of lawmaking by the state legislatures.
