Tamil Nadu government vs Governor case: Supreme Court's key ruling in 5 points

Justice JB Pardiwala, in his judgment, held that there is no concept of “absolute veto” or “pocket veto” under the Constitutional scheme.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued a landmark ruling on the role of Governors regarding bills passed by state assemblies, outlining key aspects of their powers under Article 200 of the Constitution.

Supreme Court of India. (HT_PRINT)

Justice Pardiwala, in his judgment, held that there is no concept of “absolute veto” or “pocket veto” under the Constitutional scheme.

“As a general rule, it is not open for the Governor to reserve a Bill for the President after the bills have been re-presented by the Government after being passed again by the Assembly. The only exception is when the bill presented in the second round is different from the first version,” Justice Pardiwala, in his judgment, remarked

With the Supreme Court ruling, elected governments are strengthened, ensuring Governors align with the council of ministers' advice and the constitutional framework.

Here are five crucial takeaways from the judgment:

• Timeline for bills' decision: Governors must decide on bills passed by state assemblies within a reasonable time. The court emphasised the necessity of timely action in the decision-making process.
• Respecting the will of the people: The apex court affirmed that Governors, as constitutional heads, must respect the will of the people and act in accordance with the advice of the council of ministers.
• No discretion to reserve Bills for President: The court ruled that Governors do not have the discretion to reserve bills for the President’s consideration after they are presented to them for the second time.
• Action under Article 200: Under Article 200, the Governor must act on the aid and advice of the council of ministers and cannot exercise discretion in deciding on bills.
• Error in TN Governor's bill reservation: The court declared the reservation of 10 bills by the Tamil Nadu Governor for consideration by the President as erroneous and in violation of Article 200, marking a significant stance on the Governor’s role.