Governor Has No Veto Power Under Article 200: Supreme Court While Setting Aside Tamil Nadu Governor's Reservation Of Bills For President
The Court said that Article 200 cannot be read in a manner that allows the Governor to not take action upon bills that are presented to him for assent and thereby delay and essentially roadblock the law-making machinery in the State.
Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice R. Mahadevan, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court today delivered its judgment in the case concerning Governor Dr. RN Ravi’s alleged inaction and delay in considering Bills passed by the Tamil Nadu State Legislature, and his failure to act on files, government orders, and policies sent by the State Government, and held that the substantive part of Article 200 uses the term 'shall declare' to signify that inaction is impermissible, and the Governor is constitutionally obligated to act with expediency, and that Article 200 does not allow the Governor to sit on Bills or exercise any form of veto, whether pocket or absolute.
The Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan held, “The reservation of the ten bills, which are the subject matter of challenge in the present petition by the Governor for the consideration of the President after their due reconsideration by the State Legislature, in terms of the proviso to Article 200, being in contravention of the procedure prescribed under Article 200, and as explained by us hereinabove, is declared erroneous in law, non-est…”
The Court noted, "The substantive part of Article 200 consciously uses the expression 'shall declare' to signify that there is no scope of inaction and whenever a bill is presented to the Governor, he is under a constitutional obligation to adopt one of the three courses of action available. Further, the expression as soon as possible in the first proviso permeates Article 200 with a sense of expediency and does not allow the Governor to sit on the bills and exercise pocket veto over them. Similarly, by virtue of the first proviso being intrinsically and inextricably attached to the option of withholding of assent, there is no scope for the Governor to declare a simpliciter withholding of assent, meaning thereby absolute veto is also impermissible under Article 200...."
The Court said the reservation by the Governor of the ten bills for the consideration of the President in the second round was illegal, erroneous in law, and was thus liable to be set aside. As a result, any subsequent action taken upon the said bills by the President also would not survive and was thus set aside.
The Court further added, “The Bills, having been pending with the Governor for an unduly long period of time, and the Governor not having acted in a bona fide manner in reserving the bill for the consideration of the President immediately after the pronouncement of decision of this Court in State of Punjab, were deemed to have been assented to by the Governor on the date when they were presented to him…”
The Court further laid down timelines to be followed for the decision of the Governor for Bills passed, as per Article 200 of the Constitution. The Court said, “The following timelines are being prescribed. Failure to comply with these timelines would make the inaction of the Governors subject to judicial review by the courts. In case of either withholding of assent or reservation of the bill for the consideration of the precedent upon the aid and advice of the State Council of Ministers, the Governor is expected to take three steps.
1. In case of either withholding of assent or reservation of the bill for the consideration of the President upon the aid and advice of the State Council of Ministers, the Governor is expected to take such action forthwith subject to a maximum period of one month.
2. In case of withholding of assent, contrary to the advice of the State Council of Ministers, the Governor must return the bill together with a message within a maximum period of three months.
3. In case of reservation of bills for the consideration of the President, contrary to the advice of the State Council of Ministers, the Governor shall make such reservation within a maximum period of three months.
4. In case of presentation of bill after reconsideration, in accordance with the first proviso, the Governor must grant assent forthwith, subject to a maximum period of one month."
The Bench remarked, "...the Governor must act with due deference to the settled conventions of parliamentary democracy, respecting the will of the people being expressed through the legislature, as well as the elected government responsible to the people. He must perform his role of a friend, philosopher, and guide with dispassion, guided not by concentrations of political expediency, but by the sanctity of the constitutional oath he undertakes. In times of conflict, he must be the harbinger of consensus and resolution, lubricating the functioning of the state machinery by his sagacity, wisdom, and not run it into a standstill. He must be the catalyst and not an inhibitor..."
Background
The State prepared four categories of matters on which the Governor is yet to take action. As per the first category, 12 bills passed by the Tamil Nadu State Legislative Assembly between 2020 and 2023 are pending with the Governor, even though they were submitted for the assent of the Governor between January 13, 2020 and April 28, 2023. The second category consisted of the 4 files April 10, 2022 and May 15, 2023 for sanction for prosecution of various crimes involving alleged acts of moral turpitude on the part of public servants. The third category comprised 54 files for premature release of prisoners submitted between August 24, 2023 and June 28, 2023. While the fourth category had proposals submitted to the Governor for appointment to the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPCS) which were to be appointed under Article 316 of the Constitution, it said that TNPCS is functioning with the strength of 4 members out of the total 14.
As per the proviso of Article 200 of the Constitution of India, "...the Governor may, as soon as possible after the presentation to him of the Bill for assent, return the Bill if it is not a Money Bill together with a message requesting that the House or Houses will reconsider the Bill or any specified provisions thereof and, in particular, will consider the desirability of introducing any such amendments as he may recommend in his message and, when a Bill is so returned, the House or Houses shall reconsider the Bill accordingly, and if the Bill is passed again by the House or Houses with or without amendment and presented to the Governor for assent, the Governor shall not withhold assent therefrom".
Terming the inaction of the Governor of Tamil Nadu as unconstitutional, unreasonable, and a malicious exercise of power, the writ petition asserts that this inaction is causing a complete standstill in the administration and fostering an adversarial relationship by not cooperating with the State administration.
The Writ Petition also stated that by virtue of Articles 200 and 163 of the Constitution, when a Bill passed by the Legislature of a State is presented to the Governor, he has four options, namely, a) he assents to the Bill; b) he withholds assent; c) he reserves the Bill for the consideration of the President; or d) he returns the Bill to the Legislature for reconsideration. It also argues that the satisfaction required by the Constitution is not the personal satisfaction of the President or of the Governor but is the satisfaction of the President or of the Governor in the constitutional sense under the Cabinet system of Government. Further relying on several catena of the Judgements of the Supreme Court, the State in the Petition submits that the “Assent” of the Governor/President did not involve any element of discretion of the individuals occupying the said posts but the “Assent” should only be based on the “aid and advice” of the Council of Ministers of the concerned province/Union qua the passage of the Bill unless the said Bill endangers the powers of the High Court as per second proviso to Article-200 of the Constitution.