Illegal, Arbitrary: SC on TN Governor Ravi Withholding Assent to Bills
In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court has set aside Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi’s decision to withhold assent to 10 Bills passed by the state Assembly, terming it “illegal” and “arbitrary”. The Court’s ruling has far-reaching implications for the functioning of state governments and the role of Governors in the country.
The controversy began when the Tamil Nadu Assembly passed the Bills, which included the Tamil Nadu Public Employment (Reservation of Posts for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) (Amendment) Bill, 2022, the Tamil Nadu Public Employment (Reservation of Posts for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) (Amendment) Bill, 2022, and other legislation. However, Governor Ravi withheld his assent to these Bills, citing various reasons, including that they were against the Constitution and federal principles.
The state government challenged the Governor’s decision in the Supreme Court, arguing that it was arbitrary and unconstitutional. The Court, in its judgment, agreed with the state government’s contention and held that the Governor’s decision was illegal and arbitrary. The Court also ruled that the Governor cannot reserve Bills for the President’s consideration after withholding assent.
The Supreme Court’s judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant, and Vikram Nath. The Court observed that the Governor’s role is limited to giving assent to Bills passed by the Assembly or withholding assent. However, the Governor cannot reserve a Bill for the President’s consideration after withholding assent. The Court also noted that there is no concept of “absolute veto” on Bills by the Governor.
The Court further laid down timelines for the Governor’s actions on Bills. It ruled that the Governor must give his assent or withhold assent within a reasonable time, which cannot be more than 30 days from the date of receipt of the Bill. If the Governor fails to take any action within this period, the Bill shall be deemed to have been passed by the Governor.
The Court’s ruling has significant implications for the functioning of state governments and the role of Governors in the country. It establishes that the Governor’s role is limited to giving assent or withholding assent to Bills, and that the Governor cannot reserve Bills for the President’s consideration after withholding assent.
The Court’s judgment also underscores the importance of the separation of powers between the Legislature, the Executive, and the Judiciary. It emphasizes that the Governor’s role is to ensure that the Bills passed by the Assembly are in accordance with the Constitution and federal principles, but not to undermine the democratic process.
The Supreme Court’s ruling has also been seen as a victory for the democratic process and the principle of separation of powers. It ensures that the Governor’s powers are limited and that the democratic process is not undermined by arbitrary and illegal exercises of power.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi withholding assent to 10 Bills passed by the state Assembly is a significant development for the functioning of state governments and the role of Governors in the country. It establishes that the Governor’s role is limited to giving assent or withholding assent to Bills, and that the Governor cannot reserve Bills for the President’s consideration after withholding assent. The Court’s ruling has far-reaching implications for the democratic process and the principle of separation of powers.
