In a landmark judgment on Wednesday, the Supreme Court of India criticized Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi for his failure to act on ten legislative bills, deeming his inaction as unlawful and contrary to the constitutional mandate. The apex court’s decision effectively passes these bills, declaring them as having been approved from the dates they were originally presented to the Governor after reconsideration by the state legislature.
The bench, comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, addressed the constitutional role of the Governor concerning bill approval. The Court clarified that the Governor does not possess veto powers to indefinitely withhold or ignore bills passed by the state legislature. It specified that the Governor must either assent to the bills post-reconsideration or return them with specific objections.
“The action of Governor RN Ravi to reserve these 10 bills for the President’s consideration has been found to be illegal and arbitrary. Thus, all such actions are hereby set aside,” the Court stated in its ruling. The bills are to be considered passed as of the dates they were represented to the Governor after legislative reconsideration.
The Supreme Court’s ruling came in response to a plea from the Tamil Nadu government, which sought judicial intervention after Governor Ravi refused to grant assent to several bills. These bills had been passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly and covered various policy areas crucial for the state’s governance and administrative functions.
The Court also established clear timelines for gubernatorial actions on bills to prevent future delays:
- If withholding assent and reserving for the President with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, the maximum period is one month.
- For withholding assent without the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, the bill must be returned within three months.
- For bills presented after reconsideration by the state assembly, the Governor must grant assent within one month.
This decision emphasizes the non-political, facilitative role of the Governor in the legislative process and aims to ensure that the law-making process is not unduly hindered.
Representing the State of Tamil Nadu were senior counsels Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Mukul Rohatgi, Rakesh Dwivedi, and P Wilson. The Attorney General for India, R Venkataramani, represented Governor RN Ravi.
This judgment not only resolves the immediate legal impasse but also sets a significant precedent on the constitutional obligations and limitations of gubernatorial powers in India.
