In a landmark verdict, the Supreme court fixed a timeline for Governor to act on bills passed by the state legislature as it pulled up Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi for reserving 10 bills for President's consideration, saying it was against the constitutional provisions.
A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan held, "Action of the Governor to reserve the 10 bills for President is illegal and arbitrary and thus the action is set aside."
The court added, "The 10 bills shall be deemed to be clear from the date it was re-presented to the Governor."
In the first of its kind directions, the top court fixed a timeline within which Governor has to act on bills passed by the state legislature.
The apex court said there was no expressly specified time limit for the discharge of functions by Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution.
'Despite there being no prescribed time limits, Article 200 cannot be read in a manner which allows the Governor to not take action on the bills, which are presented to him for assent and thereby delay, and essentially roadblock law-making machinery in the state,' it said.
Fixing the timeline, the bench said in case of withholding assent on a bill and reserving it for President with the aid and advice of the council of ministers, the maximum period would be one month.
In case the Governor decided to withhold assent without the aid and advice of the council of ministers, the bills must be returned to the assembly within three months, it added.
The top court said in case of presentation of a bill after reconsideration by the state assembly, the bills have to be given assent by the Governor within a period of one month.
The bench cautioned any failure to comply with the timeline would make the inaction of Governor subject to judicial review by the courts.
The top court exercised its plenary power under Article 142 of the Constitution to make the bill re-presented to the Tamil Nadu Governor, as deemed to have been passed.
It said the Governor must be conscious to not create "roadblocks or chokehold" the state legislature in order 'to thwart and break the will of the people'.
"The members of state legislature, having been elected by the people of the state as an outcome of the democratic expression, are better attuned to ensure the well being of the people of the state," the bench said.
Under Article 200 of the Constitution, the bench said, Governor did not possess any discretion and had to mandatorily act on the aid and advice of the council of ministers.
Article 200 of the Constitution empowers Governor to give assent to bills presented to him, withhold the assent or to reserve it for the consideration of President.
The bench said Governor couldn't sit over bills and adopt the concept of 'absolute veto' or 'pocket veto'.
'Pocket veto' denotes a concept where Governor sits over the bills without signing it and virtually making it ineffective.
The bench said Governor sitting over bills passed by the assembly and presented to him, without any action, made them just a 'piece of paper' and 'skeleton without flesh'.
Under Article 200 of the Constitution, the bench said, Governor was obligated to adopt any one course of action -- give assent to bills, withhold assent and reserve for consideration of President.
The bench said it was not open for Governor to reserve the bill for consideration of President after it was presented to him for the second time.
It said Governor must assent to the bills produced before him in the second round and the only exception was that the bill in the second instance was different from the first one.
It also held that the actions of Governor did not have an immunity from judicial review.
"Any action contrary to the express choice of the people, in other words, the state legislature, would be a renege of his (Governor) constitutional oath," the bench said.
Governor must perform his role as a friend, philosopher and guide with dispassion and not be guided by political considerations, it added.
"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 bench said.
The apex court had previously framed questions to answer in a dispute between Tamil Nadu government and the Governor over the delay in assent to bills passed by the legislative assembly.
The bench framed 12 questions largely on the power of Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution in giving assent to bills, withholding assent and reserving for consideration of President.
The apex court had then questioned the Governor's 'silence' before withholding assent to the bills passed by the legislative assembly and wondered how he could refer the 're-passed bills' to president.
The delay in giving assent by the Governor prompted the state government to move the top court in 2023, claiming 12 bills, including one from 2020, were pending with him.
On November 13, 2023, the Governor declared he was withholding assent to 10 bills following which the legislative assembly convened a special session and re-enacted the very same bills on November 18, 2023.
The Governor on November 28, 2023 reserved some of the bills for consideration of President.
© 2025