The Supreme Court, in its comprehensive 415-page judgment made public late on Friday, firmly established its authority to review constitutional functions while revealing that its prescribed timelines for decisions on state bills extend to the President’s office as well.
“It is clear as a noon day, that no exercise of power under the Constitution is beyond the pale of judicial review,” the bench of justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan stated in the full verdict, that was delivered on Tuesday in the case filed by the Tamil Nadu government against Governor RN Ravi’s handling of 10 bills, some of which had been pending for over two years.
ALSO READ | SC junks TN Guv’s move to reserve bills for Prez, lays down timelines for assent
According to the full ruling, the specific timelines apply not just to governors but also to the President to act on state legislation – a first in Indian constitutional history. The court’s intervention addresses what it described as a “growing and dangerous” trend of governors creating political roadblocks to frustrate state governments, especially when different political parties control the state and central governments.
Kerala governor Rajendra Arlekar became the first governor to publicly question the verdict in an interview published by HT on Saturday. Arlekar alleged the ruling was a case of “judicial overreach” and contended that the matter should have been decided by Parliament or referred to a larger constitutional bench.
The court held that such a measure balances the need for expedient decision-making with the right of states in a federal system to fulfil their mandate to voters. It emphasised that governors must act on the advice of their council of ministers and that they have no discretionary powers under Article 200.
ALSO READ | Interview: Supreme Court timeline to decide on bills overreach, says Kerala governor
The order contained specific justification of the court’s authority, defending its prescription of timelines as a careful balancing act. “The prescription of timelines by us balances the objective of expediency as well as the desirability of having some flexibility in cases of existence of an impossibility in discharge of functions in an expeditious manner,” the bench stated.
The judgment relied on recommendations from both the Sarkaria Commission report on Centre-State relations of 1988 and Justice MM Punchi Commission report of 2010, which had suggested laying down such timelines.
The timelines, reported on Tuesday, were as follows: if a governor withholds assent or reserves a bill for the President’s consideration, this must be done within three months of the bill being presented. If the state legislature re-enacts an identical bill and presents it to the governor a second time, the governor must grant assent “forthwith” or within a maximum period of one month.
ALSO READ | ‘Victory for all state governments’: Tamil Nadu CM Stalin reacts to SC’s ruling on Governors
In the full order released on Friday night, it extended this timeline discipline to the central government and held that the President must decide within three months of receiving a bill from a governor. If there is any delay beyond this period, the President’s office will be required to convey reasons to the concerned state.
The court observed that “reluctance or lethargy” by governors concerning assent to bills “severely impacts the ability of the government to act upon its mandate and deliver to the people who brought them into power.” Such obstacles, whether created deliberately or inadvertently, also affect the perception of elected governments in subsequent elections and can negatively impact their chances of returning to power, the bench noted.
The judgment expressed particular concern about situations where different political parties control the state and central governments. “The problem gets exacerbated when the political party in power in the state is different from the one at the Centre,” Justice Pardiwala wrote. The bench emphasised that governors need to be more “cautious and non-partisan” in such scenarios, warning that deliberate inaction on bills “has to be viewed as a serious threat to the federal polity of the country.”
To establish that setting timelines for constitutional functionaries was not unprecedented, the court cited the Keisham Meghachandra Singh case (2021) where it had imposed a three-month deadline for the Manipur Assembly speaker to decide disqualification pleas. It also referenced the A.G. Perarivalan case (2023), where the court ordered the release of Rajiv Gandhi’s killers due to inordinate delay by the governor in deciding on their remission petitions.
In the Tamil Nadu case at hand, the court ruled that as considerable time had elapsed since the first submission of some bills in 2020, the 10 bills that were re-enacted and presented again to the governor on November 18, 2023, were deemed to have received his assent on that date. The judgment found that governor Ravi’s actions lacked bona fides and set aside any contrary actions taken subsequently, including the President’s decisions on seven of these bills.
The Tamil Nadu government on Saturday notified 10 bills as law, predominantly related to university appointments, the first legislation in India to take effect without a governor’s signature but through the strength of a Supreme Court judgment. The government moved to notify the laws immediately after the court uploaded its judgment late on Friday.
The verdict fundamentally clarified the constitutional role of governors, emphasising that they must act on the aid and advice of the council of ministers and do not have discretionary powers under Article 200. “The words ‘in his discretion’ were removed from the text of Article 200 by Constitution framers,” the court noted, explaining that if governors were vested with such discretion, it would enable them to “collude with the Union Cabinet and ensure the death of any and all legislation initiated by the state merely by reserving it for the consideration of the President.”
The bench unequivocally rejected the notion of an “absolute veto” or “pocket veto” for governors, stating that withholding assent without furnishing reasons is impermissible. If the governor is construed to have power to withhold or reserve assent at his discretion, “it would have the potential of turning him into a super-constitutional figure, having the power to bring to a complete halt, the operation of the legislative machinery in the state,” the judgment warned.
The only permissible grounds for a governor to reserve a bill for the President’s consideration are limited to cases where the proposed legislation clearly violates fundamental rights, transgresses other constitutional limitations, or contradicts an existing parliamentary statute. The court categorically stated that reservation of a bill based on “personal dissatisfaction of the Governor, political expediency or any other extraneous or irrelevant considerations is strictly impermissible.”
Looking forward, the judgment made several recommendations to improve Centre-state relations. It suggested that when the President receives a bill from a governor on the ground that it appears to be patently unconstitutional, “it would be prudent for the President to obtain the advisory opinion of this court” by referring the matter under Article 143, which deals with the advisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. This would help dispel any apprehensions of bias, arbitrariness or mala fides, the ruling held.
The court also recommended that states consider entering into pre-legislation consultation with the central government before introducing bills that might require Presidential assent. Such a practice, it observed, would help “reduce friction” in centre-state relations and ensure “future roadblocks are overcome in the beginning itself.” The judgment urged the Centre to consider such proposals with expediency.
In a post-script message, the bench urged governors to respect the will of the people expressed through the legislature. “He must perform his role of a friend, philosopher and guide with dispassion, guided not by considerations of political expediency but by the sanctity of the constitutional oath he undertakes,” it stated. In times of conflict, the governor should be the “catalyst” and not an “inhibitor,” helping to build consensus and resolution.
The judgment is expected to have significant implications for federalism in India, particularly for states like Kerala, Telangana, Punjab, and West Bengal, which have witnessed similar tensions between the Raj Bhawan and elected governments. The court’s stern warning that “no authority must attempt to breach the constitutional firewall” serves as a reminder of the delicate balance required in India’s federal structure, with the governor’s office being “no exception to this supreme command.”