SC Verdict on Governors’ Powers over State Bills:
The Supreme Court(SC) of India, in the State of Tamil Nadu vs. Governor of Tamil Nadu, clarified that Governors must act on state bills in a time-bound manner, following the aid and advice of the council of ministers, as per Article 200, without independent discretion.
- The Tamil Nadu Governor withheld assent to 10 Bills, delaying action under Article 200. The state government challenged this, citing constitutional violations and governance disruption.
- After the Governor withheld assent, the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly re-enacted the Bills and sent them back. Instead of granting assent or returning them with comments, the Governor referred them to the President.
- SC termed the Tamil Nadu Governor’s referral of re-enacted Bills to the President as “erroneous in law.”
- The Court ruled that there is no concept of “absolute veto” or “pocket veto” under Article 200 and stated that governors cannot indefinitely delay action on bills.
- SC noted that Governors are bound to follow the advice of the Council of Ministers.
- SC ruled that Governor must give assent to a bill when a bill is presented to him after re consultation in state assembly and he can only refuse assent when the bill is different.
- The SC prescribed clear timelines for Governors when dealing with Bills with one month to withhold assent, three months if doing against State Cabinet advice, and one month for Bills re-presented after reconsideration.
- The Supreme Court ruling curbs the misuse of gubernatorial discretion to stall state legislatures, reaffirming that Governors are constitutional heads, not political actors.
- It emphasizes the primacy of the legislative process and limits executive overreach.
- The judgment sets a precedent for similar cases in states like Kerala, West Bengal, Telangana, and Punjab, where Governors have delayed assent to Bills.
