Governor and Bill Assent: Supreme Court’s Article 200 Ruling
Why in the news
The Supreme Court ruled that Governor R.N. Ravi’s withholding of assent to ten Tamil Nadu Bills was illegal and erroneous. It stressed cooperative federalism and warned against politicising the Governor’s office.
Key facts
- Date of judgment: April 8, 2025.
- Article 200 options: grant assent, withhold assent, return the Bill, or reserve it for the President.
- Money Bills are deemed to have received assent automatically.
- Pocket veto is barred: “shall” and “as soon as possible” in the Article mean prompt action.
- If a returned Bill is re-passed, the Governor must give assent.
- Using Article 142, the Court treated the 10 pending Bills as assented, citing the Governor’s disregard of earlier rulings.
Timelines set by the Court
| Authority and situation | Deadline |
|---|---|
| Governor: withhold assent or reserve a Bill | Immediately, within 1 month |
| Governor: return a Bill to the Assembly | Within 3 months, with reasons |
| Governor: Bill re-passed by Assembly | Assent within 1 month |
| President: Bill referred by Governor | Decide within 3 months; delay needs justification |
Reservation for the President
- Not allowed after a Bill is returned and re-passed, unless it changed substantially.
- Cannot rest on personal dissatisfaction or political considerations; only for grave threats to democratic principles.
Significance
- Upholds cooperative federalism; gives Opposition-ruled states a clear remedy for delays.
- Governor’s discretion is open to judicial review.
- May become a precedent for judicial intervention in matters such as judicial appointments and collegium recommendations.
Exam angle
- Articles: 200 (assent) and 142 (complete justice powers of the Court).
- Concepts: pocket veto, deemed assent, cooperative federalism.