Shaun
In the judgment outlining and circumscribing the powers of the Governor and President when it comes to dealing with bills passed by the State legislature, the Supreme Court took strong exception to the conduct of Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi in this regard.
A Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said that the Governor kept ten bills pending with him for unduly long periods in violation of the principles laid down by the Court in the Punjab Governor’s case in November 2023.
He seemed to have been weighed by extraneous considerations in doing so, the Bench opined.
Hence, it proceeded to exercise its powers under Article 142 to order that the ten bills shall be considered as deemed to have been passed.
“Having regard to the unduly long period of time for which these Bills were kept pending by the Governor before the ultimate declaration of withholding of assent and in view of the scant respect shown by the Governor to the decision of this Court in State of Punjab and other extraneous considerations that appear to be writ large in the discharge of his functions, we are left with no other option but to exercise our inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution for the purpose of declaring these ten Bills as deemed to have been assented on the date when they were presented to the Governor after being reconsidered by the State legislature i.e., on 18.11.2023,” the judgment said.
In view of the scant respect shown by the Governor to the decision of this Court in State of Punjab and other extraneous considerations that appear to be writ large in the discharge of his functions, we are left with no other option.
Supreme Court
The dispute arose when the Governor withheld assent to ten bills passed by State legislature between November 2020 and April 2023.
He did not convey any message to the State legislature for reconsideration of the said Bills as prescribed under the first proviso to Article 200 of the Constitution. The 10 bills for which assent was withheld were returned to the State legislature by the Governor.
The State legislature then repassed the 10 bills without any material change and were forwarded to the Governor for his assent in accordance with the first proviso to Article 200.
The Governor, without the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers of the State, in exercise of his discretion, referred the repassed bills for the consideration of the President.
The Supreme Court in its judgment held that it is not open for the Governor to reserve a bill for the consideration of the President once it is presented before him in the second round after having been returned to the house previously and then repassed by the legislature.
“As a general rule, it is not open for the Governor to reserve a bill for the consideration of the President once it is presented to him in the second round, after having been returned to the House previously as per the first proviso. The use of the expression “shall not withhold assent therefrom” appearing in the first proviso places a clear embargo on the Governor and is a clear enunciation of the requirement that the Governor must assent to a bill which is presented to him after complying with the procedure laid down in the first proviso,” the Court ruled.
The only exception to this general rule is when the bill presented in the second round is materially different from the one presented to the Governor in the first instance, the Bench clarified.
The Court thus held that reservation of the 10 bills by the Governor for the consideration of the President in the second round was illegal and erroneous in law.
“As a result, any subsequent action taken upon the said bills by the President also does not survive and is thus set aside,” the Court ruled.
Importantly, the Court further ordered that since the bills remained pending with the Governor for an unduly long period of time and he did not act in a bona fide manner by reserving the bill for the consideration of the President, the bills are deemed to have been assented to by the Governor on the date when they were presented to him after being reconsidered by the State legislature.
This extraordinary direction was passed by the Court taking recourse to its inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution which empowers it to pass directions to do complete justice in cases before it.
Governor must act with due deference to the settled conventions of parliamentary democracy; respecting the will of the people being expressed through the legislature.
Supreme Court
Pertinently, the Court clarified that it is in no way undermining the office of the Governor.
Rather, the Governor must be a harbinger of consenus and resolution, the Bench underlined.
“All we say is that 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 considerations 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,” the judgment stated.
