The Supreme Court reinforced on Monday that a governor’s discretionary powers are not above the constitutional provisions, setting a precedent that could reshape the role of governors in state governance. The court was addressing the Tamil Nadu government’s petition concerning Governor RN Ravi’s decisions to withhold assent to several bills and refer them to the President long after their passage.
Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan scrutinized the governor’s actions under Article 200 of the Constitution, questioning the legitimacy of withholding assent and then reserving the bill for the President’s consideration without returning it to the state legislature first.
During a rigorous hearing, the bench highlighted that such practices could undermine the legislative authority, turning the governor into a superlative figure over the legislature, a role not envisaged by the Constitution. Senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Rakesh Dwivedi, and P Wilson, representing the Tamil Nadu government, argued that this misuse of discretion disrupts the state’s legislative processes.
The court’s inquiry centered on whether the governor could bypass the state and directly seek Presidential intervention after an extended period. “If the governor withholds it for years without sending it back to the state, and one fine day decides to send it to the President, it completely contradicts the intended constitutional procedures,” Justice Pardiwala noted.
Attorney General R Venkataramani defended the governor’s office, suggesting that once a bill is withheld, it essentially falls and does not necessitate further reconsideration. However, the court countered this, questioning how a bill deemed to have fallen could later be forwarded for Presidential consideration.
The bench also demanded clarity on the governor’s communication regarding the objections to the bills, emphasizing the necessity for formal objections to enable legislative reconsideration. “If the governor does not express his objections, what exactly is the state legislature reconsidering?” Justice Mahadevan asked, stressing that legislative reconsideration should not be a mere formality.
Senior Advocate Singhvi criticized the repeated invocation of “discretion” to justify the governor’s actions, arguing that it contradicts the constitutional intent. “The governor has discretion only in the initial instance when the bill is presented to him. Once it moves beyond that under Article 200, his discretion ceases,” Singhvi stated.
