Supreme Court Rebukes Tamil Nadu Governor, Declares Withholding of Assent to State Bills as Unconstitutional

 New Delhi, April 8 – In a significant ruling reinforcing constitutional boundaries, the Supreme Court on Tuesday delivered a scathing critique of Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi for withholding assent to 10 Bills passed by the State Legislature. The apex court declared the governor’s actions “illegal and arbitrary,” and confirmed the Bills as duly passed under the Constitution.

A bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan held that the governor does not possess the authority to exercise either an absolute veto or a pocket veto under Article 200 of the Constitution. The court further clarified that once a Bill is passed a second time by the state assembly after being returned, the governor is constitutionally bound to grant assent unless the Bill has been materially altered.

“The governor’s decision to reserve the 10 Bills for the President after they were re-passed by the Tamil Nadu Assembly is unlawful and without constitutional basis,” the bench observed. “These Bills shall be deemed to have received assent from the date they were re-presented to the governor.”

The Supreme Court's ruling comes in response to a petition filed by the Tamil Nadu government, which challenged the governor’s refusal to act on several legislative proposals—including key Bills relating to the appointment of vice-chancellors in state universities. The court noted that some Bills had remained pending with the governor since as early as January 2020.

In its judgment, authored by Justice Pardiwala, the court underscored that Article 200 offers the governor three clear options upon receiving a Bill: to grant assent, withhold assent, or reserve the Bill for the President’s consideration. However, it emphasized that reservation for Presidential consideration is a one-time option and cannot be repeated after the Bill is re-adopted by the legislature.

“There is no provision in the constitutional scheme for a pocket veto or for indefinite inaction. The expression ‘shall declare’ in Article 200 mandates timely action. The governor cannot sit on Bills indefinitely,” the court ruled.

The court further established specific timelines for gubernatorial action:

• If the governor intends to grant assent, a decision must be rendered within one month.
  
  
• If the governor chooses to return the Bill for reconsideration, it must be done within three months.
  

• If the Bill is to be reserved for the President, the decision must also be made within three months.

Failure to act within these timelines, the court noted, would make the governor’s inaction subject to judicial review.

Quoting Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the bench observed, “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.”

The ruling underscores the imperative for constitutional functionaries to act in accordance with the spirit of cooperative federalism and not on political considerations.

Reacting to the verdict, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin hailed the judgment as a “historic affirmation of constitutional principles.”

“The Constitution mandates that the Governor approve Bills once they are passed again by the Assembly. He failed to do so, and was also responsible for unnecessary delays. The Supreme Court has upheld our government’s stand and delivered a landmark verdict,” Stalin said.

Legal experts have welcomed the ruling as a vital precedent reinforcing legislative supremacy in matters of state governance and curbing overreach by constitutional authorities. The verdict is expected to have far-reaching implications for the role of governors across India.