In a significant judgment with far-reaching implications for the role of Governors in Indian states, the Supreme Court of India on Monday issued a stern censure of Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi for delaying assent to several bills passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly. The apex court clarified that the Governor does not have the authority to indefinitely withhold assent to legislation and laid out strict procedural norms under Article 200 of the Constitution.
Delivering its verdict, the court observed that a Governor cannot “sit on a bill” passed by the legislature and reiterated that there is no veto power vested in the Governor. The court emphasized that the Governor must take one of three constitutionally mandated actions: grant assent, withhold assent, or refer the bill to the President — but this must be done within a reasonable timeframe.
The bench made it clear that any delay or inaction by the Governor undermines the legislative process. “Without following the procedure under Article 200, the bills are reduced to mere paper,” the court observed.
In a sharp rebuke of Governor R.N. Ravi’s conduct, the court declared that his prolonged inaction on the bills was not only unconstitutional but amounted to acting in a non-bonafide manner. The court further clarified that once a bill is returned to the Assembly and passed again — even without amendments — the Governor is bound to give assent unless the bill is substantially altered.
Moreover, the court ruled that as a general rule, a Governor cannot refer a bill to the President after it has been reconsidered and passed again by the legislature. The only exception to this would be if the bill, upon its second presentation, is substantially different from its original form.
This landmark decision is expected to impact not only the functioning of the Tamil Nadu Raj Bhavan but also set a precedent for Governors across the country, ensuring that constitutional processes are upheld and state legislatures are not impeded in discharging their democratic duties.