The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday invalidated Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi’s decision to reserve ten re-enacted state bills for the President’s assent, describing the action as erroneous and in violation of the Constitution.
A bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan found that the Governor’s decision lacked bona fides and amounted to an unauthorised “pocket veto”. The Court ruled that the ten bills—passed again by the Tamil Nadu Assembly after being initially withheld—were deemed to have received the Governor’s assent on the day they were returned to him, thereby rendering any subsequent action invalid.
“We are of the firm opinion that the reservation of the ten bills is contrary to Article 200 and legally erroneous,” said Justice Pardiwala while pronouncing the judgment. “The Governor did not act in good faith, and the bills shall be considered as having received assent on the date they were re-submitted by the assembly.”
The Court underscored that under the Constitution, once a Governor withholds assent, he must take appropriate action promptly, either by returning the bill to the assembly or referring it to the President “as soon as possible”. The phrase, it clarified, does not provide an indefinite timeline or the discretion to withhold action indefinitely.
Emphasising the principles of parliamentary democracy, the bench reiterated that the Governor must act based on the aid and advice of the state’s Council of Ministers and does not possess discretionary powers under Article 200. “Any discretionary authority that may have existed under the Government of India Act, 1935, ceased with the adoption of the Constitution,” the bench stated.
The Court also dismissed the argument that the first proviso to Article 200 provides a separate route for referring bills to the President. It held that the provision must be read in conjunction with the option to withhold assent and cannot be treated as an independent power.
“The notion of an absolute veto or pocket veto is foreign to the Indian constitutional framework,” observed Justice Pardiwala. “When a bill is presented, the Governor is bound to choose from among the three options available under Article 200 — to assent, withhold assent, or reserve the bill for Presidential consideration.”
The bench further noted that the Governor cannot simply refer a bill to the President after having already withheld assent, without first returning it to the assembly.
In general, the Court ruled, a Governor cannot reserve a bill for Presidential assent after it has been re-enacted by the state assembly unless the bill is substantially different from the original.
In this case, the re-enacted bills were identical, and hence, the subsequent referral to the President was unconstitutional.
“The Governor must take care not to create obstacles in the legislative process,” the bench stated. “In light of our constitutional powers, we have no choice but to deem the ten bills as having been assented to.”
In a significant development that affects all states, the Supreme Court also laid down strict timelines for gubernatorial decisions. If a Governor chooses to withhold assent or refer a bill to the President, this must be done within one month.
If the Governor’s decision goes against the advice of the elected government, a maximum limit of three months is to be followed.
This directive is aimed at preventing undue and indefinite delays in the passage of legislation, a concern that has arisen in multiple states where Governors have withheld bills for prolonged periods without adequate communication or justification.
The verdict comes against the backdrop of escalating tensions between the DMK-led Tamil Nadu government and Governor RN Ravi, who had withheld assent to multiple bills—some for over two years—and later referred ten of them to the President even after they were re-passed by the assembly.
During the earlier hearings in February, the bench had voiced serious reservations about the Governor’s conduct, questioning the legality of sending bills to the President after long periods of inaction.
The Court had noted that such delays undermine the constitutional role outlined in Article 200, which is designed to ensure a smooth and time-bound mechanism for legislative approval.
Senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Rakesh Dwivedi and P Wilson, appearing for the Tamil Nadu government, argued that the Governor had acted like a “super authority,” overriding the will of the elected legislature. “Governors are not parallel lawmakers or judges,” Singhvi had told the bench.
In response, Attorney General R Venkataramani, representing the Governor, contended that once assent is withheld, the bill ceases to exist and does not warrant reconsideration. However, the bench disagreed. “If the bill had ceased to exist, how could it then be forwarded to the President?” the Court asked.
It also criticised the Governor’s failure to provide any constitutional objections in writing. “Show us one communication where he raised a constitutional concern,” the bench demanded. None was submitted.
Follow us
