The Supreme Court on Tuesday overturned Governor RN Ravi’s order to withhold measures passed by the state Assembly, deeming them “illegal.” This was a major win for the Tamil Nadu administration. The court established a clear constitutional deadline for governors to act on measures passed by state legislatures while considering the state government’s suit against the governor’s activities.
The Tamil Nadu governor was criticized by the highest court, which ruled that his protracted delay was “non-bonafide” and unconstitutional. The Supreme Court established a clear constitutional deadline for governors to act on measures enacted by state legislatures in addition to removing the governor of Tamil Nadu.
The Supreme Court further ruled that the Governor must operate within the parameters set forth in Article 200 of the Constitution and does not have the power to sit on bills forever. According to the top court, the governor has three months to decide whether to sign a measure, send it back to the House, or send it to the president. In the Tamil Nadu case, the Court noted that because of the unlawful delay, ten bills that had been pending could be considered assented.
“The Constitution expects the Governor to act expeditiously. Undue delay violates the very spirit of democratic governance,” the Court said, adding that this move was necessary to “calm waters stirred by a high constitutional functionary.” The Court categorically held that the “withholding of assent is not an independent or indefinite option”, and the “concepts of pocket veto or absolute veto do not exist in the Indian Constitution.” Any delay or inaction amounts to a constitutional breach.
The Court emphasized that Article 200 restricts the Governor’s discretion, even while it acknowledges that there are some uncommon circumstances in which it may be used, such as when a bill could endanger the public or contains issues that need the President’s approval. “There is no scope of inaction. The Governor is under a constitutional obligation to act,” the Court said, referring to Article 200 of the Constitution. Without following the due procedure laid out under this article, the Court remarked, “bills remain mere paper.”
The Court stated unequivocally that governors cannot sit on laws that have been approved by the House. Unless the bill is significantly altered, the governor must sign it into law if it is returned to the legislature and passed again. The governor no longer has the authority to veto a law after it has been returned and reintroduced.
Crucially, the Court made it clear that the Governor’s acts are not immune from judicial review simply because the President’s assent is not subject to appeal. The governor’s actions or inactions must be consistent with democratic principles and the constitutional framework.
The Court also invoked the Governor’s oath of office, stressing that it mentions the well-being of the people. As the state’s constitutional leader, the governor is charged with upholding the people’s will and welfare rather than erecting obstacles in the way of elected legislators.
“When called upon to act, constitutional authorities must be guided by the spirit of the Constitution,” the bench observed. The judgment reinforces that arbitrary inaction can and will be judicially reviewed to protect democratic processes. Chief Minister MK Stalin welcomed the ruling and said it was a huge victory for not just Tamil Nadu, but for all states.
