Governor’s Delay on Bills Unconstitutional: SC and Article 200
Why in the news
In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court faulted Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi for sitting on ten Bills for a long time, calling the conduct unconstitutional and stressing prompt decisions under Article 200.
Key facts
- The Governor was said to be a roadblock to democratic governance; referring the Bills to the President only after they were passed again was held impermissible.
- The ten re-passed Bills are treated as having valid assent.
- The President’s later decisions (one approved, seven rejected, two left pending) were declared null and void.
- Justice Pardiwala said the conduct was in sharp contrast to constitutional expectations; a Governor should be a friend, guide and philosopher.
Timelines and Article 200 options
| Situation | Rule laid down |
|---|---|
| Bill presented for assent | Governor to act within 1 to 3 months |
| Bill passed again by the State Legislature | Assent must be given; one-month limit |
| Referral to President after second passage | Not permitted |
| Meaning of “as soon as possible” | Without undue delay; no pocket veto |
About Article 200
- The Governor has three choices: assent, withhold assent, or refer the Bill to the President.
- The words “shall not withhold assent” bind the Governor to a re-passed Bill, per the first proviso.
- Dropping “in his discretion”, which appeared in the Government of India Act, 1935, signals narrow discretion for Governors.
- The Court held that reserving the Bill after earlier withholding assent was not done in good faith.
Significance
- Sets a precedent for Governor-State legislature relations.
- Reaffirms legislative authority within the federal structure.
- Stops executive overreach that obstructs State Assemblies.
Exam angle
- Article: 200; timeline 1 to 3 months; one month after re-passage.
- Terms: pocket veto, first proviso, assent.
- Mains theme: Governor’s legislative powers and the legality of re-promulgating ordinances (a past UPSC question).