Landmark Judgment: The State Of Tamil Nadu vs The Governor of Tamilnadu and Anr.
The Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment on April 8, 2025, in the case of The State Of Tamil Nadu vs The Governor of Tamilnadu and Anr., which clarified the constitutional provision regarding a Governor's assent to a Bill.
Background
- The Governor of Tamil Nadu, R.N. Ravi, had withheld 10 Bills without any decision for years.
- Upon the Assembly passing the Bills again and sending them to him, the Governor, instead of assenting, referred them to the President, contradicting Article 200 of the Constitution.
- The Supreme Court deemed the Governor's action unconstitutional, and the action taken by the President, who withheld assent, was also struck down.
- Using Article 142, the Court declared the Bills as assented.
Significance
- This is the first instance where the Supreme Court declared state legislature-passed Bills as assented, opposing the President's withholding.
- The Court addressed a similar issue prevalent in Kerala, Telangana, and Punjab.
Article 200 and Its Interpretation
- Article 200 identifies the Governor's course of action upon receiving a duly passed Bill.
- If the Governor withholds assent, they must send the Bill back to the legislature for reconsideration.
- The Supreme Court reinforced that a Governor cannot exercise a veto without further legislative recourse.
Key Court Decisions
- Time Limit for Assent: The Governor or President must decide within one to three months.
- Discretion of the Governor: While withholding assent or reserving a Bill, the Governor must act on the Council of Ministers' advice.
- Judicial Review: The Court affirmed that the Governor's and President's actions under Articles 200 and 201 are subject to judicial review.
Legal and Constitutional Implications
- The Kerala Governor criticized the judgment as judicial overreach, emphasizing Parliament's role in constitutional amendments.
- Some lawyers argued that only a Constitution Bench should decide these issues, but the Court clarified its interpretation of Articles 200 and 201.
Conclusion
This judgment aims to prevent the constitutional order's subversion and ensure prompt legislative processes. It underscores the need for constitutional amendments regarding assents to Bills, inspired by the judgment itself.
