Supreme Court Declares Tamil Nadu Governor's Bill Reservations Unlawful

Supreme Court's Ruling on Governor's Actions

New Delhi: On Tuesday, the Supreme Court ruled that Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi's decision to reserve ten bills for presidential consideration was both 'illegal and erroneous.'

The bench, comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, stated that the Governor lacked the authority to reserve bills that had been re-adopted by the state assembly.

The court declared that the reservation of these ten bills was unlawful and should be annulled.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the Governor did not act in good faith, asserting that the bills were considered to have received the Governor's assent upon their re-presentation.

In a detailed opinion, the bench led by Justice Pardiwala clarified that a Governor may reserve a re-adopted bill for presidential review only if the second version differs from the original. Furthermore, it noted that the Governor cannot simply withhold assent, as Article 200 of the Constitution mandates that the Governor must act on the advice of the Chief Minister and the council of ministers.

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court had reserved its judgment after hearing arguments from Attorney General R. Venkataramani and senior advocates representing the Tamil Nadu government.

The Tamil Nadu government had filed a writ petition, alleging that the Governor was acting as a 'political rival' to the elected state government. The Governor had returned ten out of twelve pending bills after the Supreme Court issued a notice regarding the Tamil Nadu government's plea.

Following a special session where the Tamil Nadu Assembly re-adopted the ten bills, the Governor referred some of them to the President.

During the hearings, Justice Pardiwala questioned whether the Governor could simply delay action on bills passed by the Assembly, suggesting that if he believed the bills were unconstitutional, he should have informed the state government.

In November of the previous year, the Supreme Court had expressed concerns over the delay in the Governor's assent to the bills, questioning why the Governor waited three years to act after the bills were passed.

According to Article 200 of the Constitution, if a bill is re-passed, with or without amendments, it must receive the Governor's approval.