Supreme Court Landmark Ruling

Governor vs State

12 Aug, 2025
SSC Exams SSC CGL Tier 1 English Medium 0

  1. Case Background

    • Verdict delivered by Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan.

    • Originated from a writ petition by the Tamil Nadu government against Governor RN Ravi’s prolonged inaction on state bills.

    • Between Nov 2020 – Apr 2023: Tamil Nadu legislature passed 13 bills.

      • 10 bills were withheld or returned without communication.

      • When re-passed without changes, Governor still withheld assent and reserved them for President’s consideration.

  2. Supreme Court Findings

    • Governor’s refusal to assent to 10 bills deemed illegal and unconstitutional.

    • Actions were deliberately obstructive and lacked bonafide (good faith).

    • Governor violated constitutional procedure and disrespected both the Constitution and court authority.

    • Once a bill is re-passed by the Assembly without changes, the Governor must assent—cannot reserve for the President again.

  3. Article 200 – Constitutional Context

    • Governor’s options for a bill passed by the state legislature:

      1. Assent to the bill.

      2. Withhold assent.

      3. Return a non-money bill for reconsideration.

      4. Reserve the bill for the President’s consideration.

    • No timeline specified in Article 200—led to misuse through indefinite delays.

  4. Supreme Court Clarification on Timelines

    • Assent or reservation (on Council of Ministers’ advice): within 1 month.

    • Withholding assent (against Council’s advice): return with message within 3 months.

    • Reservation (against advice): within 3 months.

    • Post-reconsideration assent: within 1 month.

  5. Judicial Reasoning

    • Setting timelines is interpretation, not an amendment to the Constitution.

    • Prevents misuse of discretionary powers and protects the spirit of parliamentary democracy.

    • Governor’s discretion is subject to judicial review.

    • Even the President (Article 201) cannot indefinitely delay decision on reserved bills.

  6. Role of the President (Article 201)

    • President’s inaction is also open to judicial scrutiny.

    • If a bill is reserved on unconstitutionality grounds, President “ought to” seek SC’s opinion under Article 143 (though not mandatory).

  7. Extraordinary Powers Invoked

    • Under Article 142, SC deemed the 10 pending bills to have received assent.

    • Justification: Governor showed “scant respect” for prior rulings and gave no reasons when returning bills.

  8. Past Precedents & Reports Cited

    • Sarkaria Commission (1988) and MM Punchi Commission (2010): Recommended timelines for Governors.

    • Keisham Meghachandra Singh case (2021): SC set 3-month deadline for Manipur Speaker on disqualification pleas.

    • A.G. Perarivalan case (2023): Ordered release of Rajiv Gandhi case convicts due to Governor’s inordinate delay.

    • State of Punjab vs Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab (2024): Governor must provide reasons when returning bills.