In a severe reprimand of Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi, the Supreme Court has set aside his decision to withhold assent to 10 bills he was sitting on for years, their re-enactment by the state assembly notwithstanding, as illegal and erroneous. The landmark verdict nullified any decision the president might have taken on the bills after he escalated them post their re-consideration by the legislature. The court was cross as he flouted the principle laid down by a different bench in the Punjab governor case, which said those in gubernatorial positions do not have a veto on bills by squatting on them. Instead of falling in line, Ravi sent the Tamil Nadu legislations to the president. Some of those bills sought to take away the powers of the governor as chancellor in appointing vice-chancellors of state universities and vest them in the chief minister.
Article 200 of the Constitution allows the governor to grant assent, withhold assent and send it back to the legislature for reconsideration, or reserve bills for the president. But bills cannot be reserved for the president after they are re-enacted by the assembly in their original form. The court found the governor’s argument that it was not open for the assembly to re-enact the bills because he had not sent them back, while withholding assent, devoid of merit. Much of the problems arose due to the lack of timelines in Article 200. To plug the gap, the bench ruled that if a governor withholds assent, he must return the bill along with a message within three months. If he wants to escalate it to the president, he again has a maximum of three months to do so. But if a bill is reconsidered by the assembly and sent back to the governor, he has no option but to convey his assent within a month.
The court went on to remind that gubernatorial roles must be discharged without considerations of political expediency. In times of conflict, he must evolve consensus and not create roadblocks for the state legislature elected by the people through democratic process. By upholding the federal spirit of the Constitution and setting tight timelines, the ruling removes doubts about gubernatorial options on bills. While the verdict may not end future showdowns, expedited decision-making would serve democracy well.