Onmanorama Explains | State Govts vs Governors: What's the implication of SC order

Calling the Tamil Nadu governor's decision to sit on 10 bills approved by the state assembly "illegal and erroneous," the Supreme Court on Tuesday ended the constitutional deadlock by declaring that if the Legislative Assembly passes the bills again and presents them to the Governor, "he shall not withhold assent.”

This means the SC has invoked its powers to declare the 10 bills, some pending since January 2020, effectively cleared. The bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said that any decision taken by the Indian President on these bills would be declared invalid.

Far-reaching implications
The SC decision on Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi's silence is far-reaching as he is not the first governor to sit on bills passed by the state Assembly.

Governors are appointed by the ruling dispensation at the Centre, and of late in states ruled by the Opposition parties, they have been accused of indulging in promoting the interests of the Union Government and negating state assemblies' rights under the Constitution.

The bitter fallout between the Kerala government and former Governor Arif Mohammad Khan resulted in the state approaching the apex court on two separate occasions, accusing him of trying to “defeat the rights of the people” by indefinitely delaying crucial bills, especially those addressing post-COVID public health issues.

TN had accused Ravi of imposing himself as Stalin-led government's ‘political rival’. Punjab also approached the court, saying that delay in giving assent to the bills had threatened to bring the administration to a halt.

SC guidelines
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court ruled that there was no concept of "absolute veto" or "pocket veto" (the legal term for sitting on bills passed by the Assembly indefinitely) under the Constitution. As per Article 200 of the Constitution, the Governor is expected to take one of three courses of action on bills—grant assent to bills, withhold assent to bills, or reserve the bills for the President. The court held that bills can be reserved for the President only at the first instance, i.e., when they are presented to the Governor for the first time.

In the judgment, the court also laid down timelines for the governors to take a decision under Article 200 on the bills:

1. In case of withholding assent and reserving it for the President with the aid and advice of the council of ministers, the Governor has to take a decision within a maximum of one month.

2. In case of withholding of bills or reservation for the President contrary to the advice of state government, the Governor shall take a decision within a period of maximum three months.

3. In case of presentation of the bill after re-consideration by state Assembly, the bills should be assented by the Governor within one month.

In effect, the SC stipulated that governors must decide on the bills passed by the Assembly within three months.
(With LiveLaw inputs)