In a decision that will reshape the relationship between the government and Raj Bhavan in states across the country, the Supreme Court on Tuesday came down heavily on Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi’s undue delaying of bills passed by the state legislature, describing a virtual “pocket veto” as “illegal” and “erroneous”. The ruling in The State of Tamil Nadu vs The Governor of Tamil Nadu reiterates a basic democratic principle: The will of the people, as expressed through the legislature and elected government, must be respected. At a time when a dismal pattern has emerged in non-BJP-ruled states, of tussle between governor and government, the Court has set a welcome precedent. It has ruled that the office of the governor, even as it remains constitutionally significant, cannot be a parallel centre of power.
This is not the first time the Court has cautioned governors against overreach. In 2023, in State of Punjab vs Principal Secretary to Punjab Governor, the Court had held that governors are bound to act in a timely manner on bills passed by the elected legislature and that withholding assent without justifiable cause undermines the will of the people. In 2023, days after the Supreme Court had raised serious concerns over inaction by governors, Ravi had returned 10 pending bills that were passed by the state legislature. These dealt with a range of issues, including measures to address corruption, public appointments and amendments to state universities’ governance. The Court underscored that the governor, despite being a titular head, cannot impede legislative processes and must adhere to the guidelines of Article 200, which defines the powers of his office regarding assent to bills. It clarified that while the governor holds certain discretionary powers, decision-making primarily rests with the elected government. The Court also invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to declare the 10 bills, which had been long delayed by Ravi, as having received assent.
Crucially, the judgment addresses an ambiguity regarding the timeline within which governors are expected to act, a loophole that seemingly let governors sit on bills indefinitely — the Court has now set deadlines for returning a bill to the legislature or sending it to the President for consideration, reiterating that once the bill has been resubmitted after reconsideration by the state assembly, assent must be granted. With states like Kerala and Telangana also having gone to court alleging obstructionist tactics and undue delays by their respective governors, the verdict in the Tamil Nadu case is bound to have a wider impact. This recalibration of the governor’s role is essential for preserving the integrity of democratic institutions and ensuring that the will of the people prevails.
