Context:
The ongoing dispute between the Tamil Nadu government and Governor R.N. Ravi has drawn significant attention to the role of state Governors in the legislative process. The case, currently before the Supreme Court (SC), has raised questions over the constitutional limits of the Governor’s power to withhold assent to bills passed by state Assemblies.
The Heart of the Issue:
The crux of the Tamil Nadu government’s dispute with Governor Ravi revolves around the interpretation of Article 200 of the Indian Constitution. This article mandates that when a bill is presented to the Governor after being passed by the state legislature, the Governor must decide whether to:
1. Give assent to the Bill, which then becomes law in the state.
2. Withhold assent and send the Bill back for reconsideration by the state legislature.
3. Reserve the Bill for the President’s consideration.
Article 200 also stresses that the Governor must take this action “as soon as possible” after receiving the Bill. The Tamil Nadu government has argued that prolonged delays in granting assent to these bills undermine the democratic process and violate the principles of the Constitution. Since the state first approached the SC, similar concerns have been raised by other opposition-led states about delays in assent.
Key Issues Before the Supreme Court
1. Repeated Withholding of Assent
The Tamil Nadu government has raised the issue of whether the Governor has the authority to withhold assent for a second time after the state Assembly has passed the Bill again following the Governor’s initial withholding. In this context, the SC will consider if the Governor is required to either grant assent or reserve the Bill for the President after the Assembly re-passes the Bill.
2. Governor’s Power to Refer Bills to the President
The SC will examine the limits of the Governor's power to refer a Bill to the President. While Article 200 allows the Governor to reserve a Bill for the President, the Court will assess if this power extends to all Bills or only to those with specific constitutional implications.
3. The Pocket Veto:
Another critical issue is the concept of the pocket veto, where the Governor indefinitely delays assent to a Bill. The Tamil Nadu government has questioned whether such prolonged delays have any constitutional validity. The SC may need to clarify if there is any threshold after which such inaction becomes unconstitutional.
4. Time Frame for Assent
Although Article 200 states that assent should be granted "as soon as possible," it does not specify a time frame for this action. The SC has previously addressed the issue of delay but has yet to issue a binding timeline for Governors. The Court will likely consider whether it should impose a clear deadline for assent and, if so, what that timeline should be.
Previous SC Observations:
In past decisions, the SC has emphasized that the Governor cannot withhold assent indefinitely. For instance, in the Nabam Rebia and Bamang Felix vs Deputy Speaker (2016) case, Justice Madan Lokur had remarked that the Governor must return a Bill with a message, including any suggested amendments, and cannot withhold assent permanently. This ruling was reinforced in November 2023 when the Court, while hearing a similar case filed by the Punjab government, stated that the phrase “as soon as possible” in Article 200 means that a Governor cannot delay assent indefinitely.
