In a groundbreaking decision on April 8, the Supreme Court delivered a verdict denouncing Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi’s prolonged refusal to grant his assent to 10 Bills as unlawful and contrary to the law. Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan highlighted the significance of cooperative federalism in light of mounting concerns regarding the escalating politicization of the Governor’s role in states governed by the opposition.
Understanding the Process of Granting Assent:
Under Article 200 of the Constitution, the Governor possesses certain powers when a Bill, following approval by the State legislature, is presented for assent. The only exclusion to this rule is Money Bills, which are automatically considered to have received assent. Once a Bill is passed by both Houses of the legislature, the Governor can choose from four options: grant assent, withhold assent, return the Bill to the Assembly for reconsideration, or reserve it for the President’s review. However, only Bills that significantly undermine the powers of the High Court to the extent of jeopardizing its constitutionally mandated role can be reserved for Presidential consideration.
Navigating the ‘Pocket Veto’ Conundrum:
The ongoing stalemate between Governors and opposition-led State governments centers around the interpretation of a critical proviso. While this provision mandates prompt action, it fails to specify a definitive timeline. This silence within the Constitution has been exploited by Governors to indefinitely delay action on a Bill without formally returning it, a maneuver commonly referred to as the “pocket veto.”
However, the judges underlined that the term “shall” in the substantive part of Article 200, coupled with the phrase “as soon as possible” in the proviso, eliminates the possibility of a pocket veto. Justice Pardiwala, the author of the decision, clarified that the Governor’s ability to “withhold assent” should not be equated with an unqualified power to reject legislation duly enacted by the State legislature. He cautioned that such an interpretation would undermine the very essence of a representative democracy.
Implications of Presidential Consideration:
In further restricting the discretionary powers of the Governor, the court ruled that once a Bill is returned to the State legislature, reconsidered, and resubmitted for assent, it cannot be reserved for the President’s review. The sole exception to this rule is if the Bill, in its revised form, significantly differs from the original version. The judgment also emphasized that such reservation cannot be based on personal dissatisfaction or political expediency, but only in cases where there is a substantial threat to democratic principles.
Practical Timelines and Judicial Review:
The court has imposed specific timelines on both the Governor and the President to prevent hindrances to the State’s legislative process. It was clarified that any deviation from these timelines may be excused only with reasonable grounds. The judges highlighted that any exercise of gubernatorial discretion must be open to judicial review to prevent any disregard for the will of the people as expressed through their elected representatives.
Expert Insights and Potential Implications:
Former Secretary General of the Lok Sabha, P.D.T. Achary, commended the ruling for upholding federalism principles and providing opposition-led State governments with a clear constitutional remedy against unwarranted delays by Governors in granting assent to Bills. He noted that the Supreme Court’s articulation of precise timelines for both the Governor and the President ensures that essential legislation is not indefinitely stalled. Senior advocate Shadan Farsat praised the court for invoking its inherent powers to establish a legal fiction of deemed assent, which acts as a safeguard against office abuse. He suggested that this ruling could set a precedent for judicial intervention in cases where the Union government delays acting on collegium recommendations.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s recent decision sets a significant legal precedent that not only curtails the discretionary powers of Governors but also streamlines the legislative process, ensuring that the enactment of crucial legislation is not unduly delayed. This landmark ruling underscores the importance of constitutional checks and balances in safeguarding the democratic principles on which our nation is founded.
