IAS/UPSC Coaching Institute  

19 Apr 2025 : A restoration of sanity to the constitutional system

 Editorial 2: A restoration of sanity to the constitutional system

Context

The importance of the top court’s judgment on the Tamil Nadu Governor is in the need to make necessary changes in the Constitution regarding the issue of assent to Bills.

 

Introduction

The judgment of the Supreme Court of India on April 8, 2025, in the case of The State of Tamil Nadu vs The Governor of Tamil Nadu and Anr., is considered a landmark because it has brought more clarity to the constitutional provision about the Governor’s assent to a Bill. The case is about the Governor of Tamil Nadu, R.N. Ravi, who kept 10 Bills with him for many years without making a decision. When the Assembly passed the Bills again and sent them to him, the Governor, instead of giving his assent as required by Article 200 of the Constitution, sent them to the President of India for review. He did this only after the Tamil Nadu Government approached the top court.

 

Supreme Court Declares Bills Assented to After Governor's Delay

  • The Court (Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan) ruled that the Governor’s action of sending Billsto the President was unconstitutional and struck it down.
  • The President’s action of withholding assent was also struck down.
  • Under Article 142, the Court declared the Bills as assented to.
  • This is likely the first time Bills withheld by the President have been declared assented to by the Court.
  • This decision is an extraordinary remedy to an extraordinary situation caused by the Governor.
  • Similar issues have occurred in Kerala, Telangana, and Punjab. Kerala has approached the Court on the same matter.

 

The Bill does not die

Key provisions

  

Article 200

It outlines the course of action for the Governor when a Bill passed by the legislature is presented to him.

Governor’s Role

The logical step for the Governor is to give assent to the Bill. However, if the Governor decides to withhold assent, Article 200 allows him to declare that he is withholding assent.

Effect of Withholding Assent

Initially, it seems that withholding assent would result in the Bill dying. However, the Court clarified in the State of Punjab vs Principal Secretary to The Governor of Punjab and Another (2023) case that withholding assent does not end the Bill.

Court’s Explanation

The Court clarified that when the Governor withholds assent, the Bill must be sent to the legislaturefor reconsideration as soon as possible. The legislature then decides whether to return it in its original form or with amendments.

Governor’s Action After Reconsideration

After the Bill is sent back by the legislature, the Governor must give assent to it. The Governorcannot exercise a veto against the Bill.

Judicial Explanation (2023)

The Court stated that if the Governor decides to withhold assent, he must follow the first proviso of Article 200, which requires remitting the Bill to the legislature for reconsideration. Without this step, the Governor would have a veto over the elected legislature.

Tamil Nadu Case Follow-up

The Court reaffirmed this principle in the Tamil Nadu case, emphasizing that withholding assent does not end the Bill but mandates that the Governor send it back to the legislature for reconsideration, after which the Governor must give assent.

The Court’s ‘time limit’ and legality in the Historic Judgment

  • Time Limit for Assent Decision: The Court set a time limit for the Governor and President to decide on assent to Bills: 1 to 3 months.
    • If the time limit is not followed, the State can approach the constitutional court.
    • The Court emphasized this due to the Governor’s delay in acting on Bills for years.
    • The Governor cannot exercise a pocket veto or absolute veto under Article 200.
  • Legality of Time Limit: The Court clarified that Article 200 requires decisions within a reasonable period if no time limit is prescribed.
    • Deliberate inaction by the Governor on assent is seen as a threat to the federal polity.
  • Governor’s Discretion in Withholding Assent: The Court ruled that the Governor can withhold assent or reserve a Bill for the President only on the advice of the Council of Ministers.
    • If the Governor withholds assent, the Bill must be sent back to the legislature for reconsideration, and the Governor must give assent once returned.
    • There are inconsistencies in the Court’s interpretation of the Governor’s discretion, especially regarding when the Council of Ministers advises withholding assent or proposing amendments.

 

Judicial Review of Governor and President’s Decision

  • Judicial Review: The Court established that no exercise of power under the Constitution is beyond judicial review.
    • The Court confirmed that Articles 200 (Governor) and 201 (President) are subject to judicial review.
  • Kerala Governor’s Objection: The Kerala Governor argued that the Court's decision was judicial overreach, and that only Parliamenthas the power to amend the Constitution.
    • While Parliament can amend the Constitution, the judiciary's role is to interpret and explain constitutional provisions.
  • Constitution Bench Dispute: Some lawyers claim that the issues decided by Justice Pardiwala’s Bench should be handled by a Constitution Bench under Article 145(3).
    • However, the Court clarified that the points raised do not fall under substantial questions of law as defined by Article 145(3).
  • Court’s Role in Preventing Constitutional Subversion: The Court aimed to restore the constitutional system by preventing the arbitrary and deliberate inactionof constitutional authorities.
    • By clarifying the inherent meaning of Articles 200 and 201, the Court strengthened the constitutional order.

 

Conclusion

Many years ago, India witnessed an embarrassing situation where the President delayed approving a postal Bill for years, while the Union government couldn't do anything about it. This highlights the need to make necessary changes in the Constitution regarding the President's approval of Bills passed by Parliament or State legislatures. This judgment serves as a guide for those changes, which is why it is significant