{"id":45735,"date":"2025-04-09T02:50:09","date_gmt":"2025-04-08T21:20:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/?p=45735"},"modified":"2025-05-07T20:48:24","modified_gmt":"2025-05-07T15:18:24","slug":"sc-overrules-tamil-nadu-governor-on-bill-assent","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/sc-overrules-tamil-nadu-governor-on-bill-assent\/","title":{"rendered":"SC Overrules Tamil Nadu Governor on Bill Assent: Key Ruling on Governor\u2019s Powers"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2>What\u2019s in Today\u2019s Article?<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li>Governor\u2019s Assent to Bills Latest News<\/li>\n<li>Constitutional Role of the Governor in Assenting to Bills<\/li>\n<li>Earlier Judgements of SC on Governors Power to Withhold Assent<\/li>\n<li>Supreme Court\u2019s Ruling in Tamil Nadu Governor Assent Case<\/li>\n<li>Governor\u2019s Assent to Bills FAQs<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>Governor\u2019s Assent to Bills Latest News<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li>In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court struck down Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi\u2019s decision to withhold assent to 10 Bills, declaring it illegal and contrary to constitutional provisions.\u00a0<\/li>\n<li>The ruling reasserts the limited discretionary powers of Governors and reinforces the primacy of elected state governments in the legislative process.<\/li>\n<li>This verdict is especially significant in the context of Opposition-ruled states, where Governors are often seen as aligned with the Centre, leading to political tension and legislative gridlocks.\u00a0<\/li>\n<li>The Court&#8217;s decision is likely to influence ongoing and future disputes, including a similar case concerning delays by the Kerala Governor in assenting to state Bills, which is currently under judicial consideration.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>Constitutional Role of the Governor in Assenting to Bills<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li>Article 163 outlines the general powers of the Governor, requiring them to act on the advice of the Council of Ministers except in certain discretionary matters.<\/li>\n<li>Article 200 specifically deals with the Governor\u2019s options when a Bill is presented after being passed by the State Legislature.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3>Governor\u2019s Four Options Under Article 200<\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>Grant Assent to the Bill.<\/li>\n<li>Withhold Assent to the Bill.<\/li>\n<li>Return the Bill (except Money Bills) for reconsideration.<\/li>\n<li>Reserve the Bill for the President\u2019s consideration.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3>Key Proviso in Article 200<\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>The Governor may return a non-money Bill \u201c<strong>as soon as possible<\/strong>\u201d with a message for reconsideration.<\/li>\n<li>If the Bill is passed again by the legislature, <strong>the Governor is bound to grant assent<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<li>However, <strong>no specific timeframe<\/strong> is defined for the Governor to act, creating a loophole.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3>Issue of Delay<\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>Governors, particularly in Opposition-ruled states, have used this ambiguity to <strong>delay assent indefinitely<\/strong>, leading to legislative deadlocks and Centre\u2013State tensions.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3>Impact of Indefinite Delay<\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>An open-ended delay in granting assent can <strong>paralyse the functioning of an elected government<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<li>This tactic is often equated to a <strong>\u201cpocket veto\u201d<\/strong>, where the Governor <strong>neither assents nor returns the Bill<\/strong>, effectively stalling legislation.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3>Governor Power to Sit on a Bill Indefinitely<\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>Article 200 uses the word \u201cshall\u201d, indicating a mandatory obligation on the Governor to act.<\/li>\n<li>This reflects the Constitution\u2019s intent that the Governor should not indefinitely withhold assent but act within a reasonable time frame.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>Earlier Judgements of SC on Governors Power to Withhold Assent<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Nabam Rebia Case (2016): Arunachal Pradesh Assembly Ruling<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>In the <i>Nabam Rebia &amp; Bamang Felix vs Deputy Speaker<\/i> case, the Supreme Court emphasized that:\n<ul>\n<li>The Governor cannot withhold assent indefinitely.<\/li>\n<li>If the Governor has concerns, they must <strong>return the Bill with a message<\/strong>, which may include <strong>recommended amendments<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li>The Court cited <strong>Rules 102 and 103<\/strong> of Assembly procedures, mandating the Speaker to read or circulate the Governor\u2019s message when a Bill is returned.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><strong>State of Punjab vs Principal Secretary to the Governor (2023)<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>The dispute involved the <strong>Punjab government<\/strong> and <strong>Governor Banwarilal Purohit<\/strong>, who refused assent to certain Bills, citing procedural irregularities in reconvening the Assembly.<\/li>\n<li>The <strong>Governor claimed the session was illegal<\/strong>, as it was resumed after an adjournment <i>sine die<\/i> without formal prorogation.<\/li>\n<li>The <strong>Supreme Court ruled in favour of the Punjab government<\/strong>, stating:\n<ul>\n<li>A Governor is <strong>an unelected Head of the State<\/strong> and must <strong>not obstruct the legislative process<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<li>If the Governor chooses to withhold assent under Article 200, they must <strong>follow the first proviso<\/strong> \u2014 i.e., <strong>return the Bill for reconsideration<\/strong>, not stall it indefinitely.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>Supreme Court\u2019s Ruling in Tamil Nadu Governor Assent Case<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li>The Court <strong>relied on its 2023 ruling<\/strong> in the Punjab case but went a <strong>step further<\/strong> by introducing <strong>specific time limits<\/strong> for the Governor&#8217;s actions under Article 200.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3>Time Limits Prescribed<\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Timely Action When Acting on Ministerial Advice<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>If the Governor decides to withhold assent or reserve a Bill for the President, they must take action within a maximum of one month, provided it is based on the advice of the State Council of Ministers.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><strong>Return of Bill When Acting Contrary to Advice<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>When the Governor withholds assent contrary to the advice of the Council of Ministers, they are required to return the Bill with a message for reconsideration within a period of three months.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><strong>Reservation for the President Against Ministerial Advice<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>If the Governor chooses to reserve the Bill for the President despite the contrary advice of the State Council, such reservation must also be made within a maximum of three months.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><strong>Assent to Reconsidered Bill<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>In cases where the Bill is re-presented after reconsideration by the legislature, the Governor must grant assent within a maximum period of one month.<\/li>\n<li>Failure to act within these timelines would make the Governor\u2019s inaction <strong>subject to judicial review<\/strong>, reinforcing democratic accountability and <strong>ensuring that the legislative process is not obstructed arbitrarily<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3>Use of Article 142 \u2013 \u201cComplete Justice\u201d<\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>The Court invoked <strong>Article 142<\/strong> to directly <strong>deem the 10 pending Bills as assented to<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<li>Reason: The Bills were kept pending for an <strong>unduly long period<\/strong>, showing <strong>\u201cscant respect\u201d<\/strong> by the Governor for earlier judicial guidance.<\/li>\n<li>Article 142 empowers the Court to go beyond technicalities and deliver <strong>complete justice<\/strong>, especially where <strong>no legal remedy<\/strong> otherwise exists.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>Governor\u2019s Assent to Bills FAQs<\/h2>\n<p><strong>Q1.<\/strong> What did the Supreme Court rule on Tamil Nadu Governor\u2019s actions?<\/p>\n<p><strong>Ans.<\/strong> The Court declared withholding assent to 10 Bills illegal and laid down strict timelines for gubernatorial decisions under Article 200.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Q2.<\/strong> What are the Governor\u2019s four options under Article 200?<\/p>\n<p><strong>Ans.<\/strong> Grant assent, withhold assent, return for reconsideration, or reserve the Bill for the President\u2019s consideration.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Q3.<\/strong> What key change did the Court introduce in this ruling?<\/p>\n<p><strong>Ans.<\/strong> It imposed specific time limits for each action a Governor may take on a Bill to avoid indefinite delays.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Q4.<\/strong> Why is the ruling significant for Opposition-ruled states?<\/p>\n<p><strong>Ans.<\/strong> It curbs the Governor&#8217;s arbitrary powers, protecting elected governments from legislative deadlocks caused by political interference.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Q5.<\/strong> What is Article 142 and how was it used here?<\/p>\n<p><strong>Ans.<\/strong> Article 142 empowers the Court to ensure complete justice; it was used to deem the 10 Bills as assented.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Source: <\/strong><a href=\"https:\/\/indianexpress.com\/article\/explained\/sc-sets-aside-tamil-nadu-governors-move-the-ruling-impact-9931597\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\">IE<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court declares Tamil Nadu Governor\u2019s withholding of assent to 10 Bills illegal, reinforcing limits on gubernatorial powers under Article 200.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":45736,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[18],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-45735","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-upsc-mains-current-affairs","8":"no-featured-image-padding"},"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/45735","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=45735"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/45735\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/45736"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=45735"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=45735"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=45735"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}