Supreme Court sets aside Tamil Nadu Governor's decision to reserve 10 Bills for President
In a landmark verdict, the Supreme Court on Tuesday set aside Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi’s decision to withhold assent for 10 Bills and reserving them to the President even after they were re-enacted by the state assembly, terming it “illegal and erroneous”.
A bench led by Justice JB Pardiwala declared that the 10 Bills would be deemed to have received the Governor’s assent when they were presented to him for the second time after having been passed by the state legislature again.
The bench – which also included Justice R Mahadevan further declared “non-est” in law any consequential steps taken by the President on the said 10 Bills.
Pulling up the Governor for arbitrarily sitting on the Bills, the top court said he did not act in a bona fide manner as the Bills were sent to the President after he himself sat over them over a long time. The Bills were reserved for the President soon after the top court’s ruling in the Punjab Governor’s case that a Governor can’t veto bills by simply sitting over them, it noted.
The verdict came as a massive win for the Stalin-led DMK government which has been at loggerheads with Governor Ravi over various bills, appointment of vice chancellors and even his customary address to the state assembly.
DMK cadres welcomed the judgment by bursting firecrackers and distributing sweets, and the Tamil Nadu Government was expected to notify these laws in the official gazette soon.
Describing the verdict as “historic”, Stalin said, “It’s a big victory not just for Tamil Nadu but for all Indian states. DMK will continue to struggle for and win state autonomy and federal polity.”
Senior DMK leader RS Bharathi said if the Governor left the Raj Bhavan tonight then it could be assumed that he’s a self-respecting person. Such a judgment has not been delivered against any Governor by the court in the past over seven decades since Independence, Bharathi said.
DMK leader P Wilson said Governor Ravi has ceased to be the chancellor of state-run universities after the verdict.
Under Article 200 of the Constitution, the Governor can either grant assent to bills or withhold his assent or reserve the same for the President.
Pronouncing the verdict for the bench, Justice Pardiwala, however, said there was no concept of “absolute veto” or “pocket veto” under the constitutional scheme.
The bench set timelines for the Governors’ decision under Article 200 on Bills sent to him by the assembly for assent. A Bill can be reserved for the President only at the first instance, it said.
The top court said in case of withholding assent to Bills and reserving it for the President with the aid and advice of Council of Ministers, the Governor has to take a decision within one month. In case of withholding of Bills or reservation for the President contrary to the advice of the state government, the Governor shall take decision within three months, it said. If presented to him after re-consideration by the state assembly, the Bills have to be assented to by the Governor within one month, it added.
“The Governor must be conscious to not create roadblocks or chokehold the state legislature in order to thwart and break the will of the people for political ends. The members of the state legislature have been elected by the people of the state as a result of the democratic outcome are better attuned to ensure the wellbeing of the people. Hence, any expression contrary to the express choice of the people, in other words, the state legislature, would be a renege on the constitutional oath,” the bench said.
Noting that it didn’t want to undermine the office of the Governor, the bench said, “…the Governor must act with due deference to the settled conventions of the Parliamentary democracy, respecting the will of the people expressed through the legislature as well as the elected government responsible to the people. He must perform his role of a friend, a philosopher and guide, with dispassion, guided not by considerations of political expediency but by the sanctity of the constitutional oath he undertook.”
It said, “In times of conflict, he must be the harbinger of consensus and resolution, lubricating the functioning of the state machinery by his sagacity and wisdom, and not bring it to a standstill. He must be the catalyst and not the inhibitor. All his actions must be taken keeping in mind the high constitutional office he occupies. It is imperative that all his actions must be guided by true allegiance to his oath and he faithfully executes his functions. The Governor as the constitutional head of the state is obliged to accord primacy to the will and welfare of the people of the state and earnestly work in harmony with the state machinery.”
Quoting Dr BR Ambedkar, Justice Pardiwala said, “However good a constitution may be, if those who are implementing it are not good, it will prove to be bad.”
The verdict came on Tamil Nadu Government’s petition challenging the Governor’s decision to sit over the bills passed by the state assembly. The bench had reserved its verdict on the issue on February 10.
Attorney General R Venkataramani had defended the Governor’s actions, saying he did not act beyond his jurisdiction in withholding assent to Bills and referring them to the President as he found them to be repugnant to laws enacted by Parliament.
