In News:

In a landmark judgment in The State of Tamil Nadu v. The Governor of Tamil Nadu & Anr., the Supreme Court of India decisively addressed the issue of Governors withholding assent to state bills without justification or within a reasonable time.

The case arose after the Tamil Nadu Governor delayed or reserved for the President’s consideration 10 re-enacted Bills passed by the State Assembly, prompting the State Government to move the Court. The Supreme Court declared such delays unconstitutional and laid down a time-bound framework for gubernatorial assent, thereby reinforcing the federal fabric and legislative autonomy of states.

Constitutional Framework and Issues

Under Article 200, when a Bill is presented to the Governor after being passed by the State Legislature, the Governor has four options: grant assent, withhold assent, return the Bill (except money Bills), or reserve it for the President. However, the proviso to Article 200 mandates that once a Bill is re-passed by the Legislature, the Governor “shall not withhold assent.” Article 163 requires the Governor to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers (CoM), except in limited discretionary matters.

The crux of the problem lies in the absence of any timeline in Article 200, enabling some Governors to indefinitely delay or withhold assent—often termed a “pocket veto.” Such delays, especially in opposition-ruled states, have sparked accusations of political misuse and erosion of democratic norms. Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Punjab, and Telangana have faced similar issues, resulting in constitutional gridlock and litigation.

Key Observations of the Supreme Court

In its verdict, the Supreme Court declared that:

• The Governor's delay in granting assent or reserving re-passed Bills is illegal and violates constitutional provisions.
• The ten re-enacted Bills in Tamil Nadu are deemed to have received assent under Article 142, which empowers the Court to ensure "complete justice."
• The Governor has no discretion to reserve or withhold assent once a Bill is re-passed by the Assembly unless its content has materially changed.
• Indefinite inaction by the Governor amounts to a subversion of democracy and disrespect to the will of the people.

Time-bound Guidelines Laid Down

For the first time, the Court laid down clear timelines:

• 1 month to act (assent/reserve) on the aid and advice of CoM.
• 3 months to return a Bill if withholding assent without CoM's advice.
• 1 month to assent to a Bill re-passed by the legislature.
• 3 months maximum to reserve a Bill for the President, with justification.

Failure to comply renders the Governor’s inaction subject to judicial review, introducing a mechanism of constitutional accountability.

Significance for Federalism and Governance

The judgment is a milestone in reaffirming cooperative federalism, ending the misuse of gubernatorial discretion to obstruct state legislation. It upholds the supremacy of the elected legislature and enforces the constitutional principle that Governors are not political actors but facilitators of governance. It also ensures that democratic processes cannot be sabotaged by unelected constitutional functionaries.

Conclusion

By reinforcing time-bound gubernatorial actions and curbing arbitrary delays, the Supreme Court has safeguarded India’s constitutional architecture. As Dr. B.R. Ambedkar had warned, the effectiveness of the Constitution depends on its implementers. This verdict echoes that caution, ensuring that constitutional morality prevails over partisan politics.