The Hindu Editorial Analysis- 19th April 2025 | Current Affairs & Hindu Analysis: Daily, Weekly & Monthly - UPSC PDF Download

A restoration of sanity to the constitutional system

Why is it Newsworthy?

 The recent judgment by the Supreme Court on the Tamil Nadu Governor's actions highlights the need for constitutional changes regarding the assent to Bills. 

Introduction

On April 8, 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant judgment in the case of The State of Tamil Nadu vs The Governor of Tamil Nadu and Anr. This verdict is considered a landmark because it clarified the constitutional provision concerning the Governor's assent to a Bill. The case involved the Governor of Tamil Nadu, R.N. Ravi, who had delayed his decision on 10 Bills for several years. When the Assembly re-passed these Bills and sent them again, the Governor, instead of granting his assent as required by Article 200 of the Constitution, forwarded them to the President of India for review. This action was taken only after the Tamil Nadu Government approached the Supreme Court for intervention.

Supreme Court's Ruling on Delayed Bills

• The Supreme Court, led by Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan, ruled that the Governor's decision to send the Bills to the President was unconstitutional and invalidated it.
• The Court also struck down the President's action of withholding assent.
• Utilizing Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court declared the Bills as assented to.
• This ruling is likely the first instance where Bills withheld by the President have been declared assented to by the Court.
• The decision serves as an extraordinary remedy to an unusual situation created by the Governor's actions.
• Similar issues have been observed in other states like Kerala, Telangana, and Punjab, with Kerala already approaching the Court on this matter.

Understanding Article 200

• Governor's Role: Article 200 outlines the procedure for the Governor when a Bill passed by the legislature is presented to him. The logical step for the Governor is to give assent to the Bill. However, if the Governor decides to withhold assent, Article 200 allows him to declare that he is withholding assent.
• Effect of Withholding Assent: Initially, it may seem that withholding assent would result in the Bill dying. However, the Court clarified in a previous case that withholding assent does not terminate the Bill.
• Court's Explanation: When the Governor withholds assent, the Bill must be sent back to the legislature for reconsideration as soon as possible. The legislature then decides whether to return it in its original form or with amendments.
• Governor's Action After Reconsideration: After the Bill is sent back by the legislature, the Governor is obligated to give assent to it. The Governor cannot exercise a veto against the Bill.
• Judicial Explanation (2023): The Court stated that if the Governor decides to withhold assent, he must follow the first proviso of Article 200, which requires remitting the Bill to the legislature for reconsideration. This step is crucial to prevent the Governor from having a veto over the elected legislature.
• Tamil Nadu Case Follow-up: The Court reaffirmed this principle in the Tamil Nadu case, emphasizing that withholding assent does not kill the Bill. Instead, it mandates that the Governor send it back to the legislature for reconsideration, after which the Governor must give assent.

Time Limits and Legalities in the Historic Judgment

• Time Limit for Assent Decision: The Court established a time frame for the Governor and President to decide on the assent to Bills, ranging from 1 to 3 months. If this timeframe is not adhered to, the State has the right to approach the constitutional court. This emphasis on a time limit was necessitated by the prolonged delay exhibited by the Governor in acting on Bills.
• Legality of Time Limit: The Court clarified that while Article 200 does not prescribe a specific time limit, it requires decisions to be made within a reasonable period. The deliberate inaction by the Governor regarding assent is perceived as a threat to the federal structure.
• Governor's Discretion in Withholding Assent: The Court ruled that the Governor can withhold assent or reserve a Bill for the President only based on the advice of the Council of Ministers. If the Governor withholds assent, the Bill must be returned to the legislature for reconsideration, and the Governor is obligated to grant assent once the Bill is returned.
• Inconsistencies in Court's Interpretation: There are observed inconsistencies in the Court's interpretation of the Governor's discretion, particularly concerning the circumstances under which the Council of Ministers advises withholding assent or suggesting amendments.

Judicial Review of Governor and President's Decisions

• Judicial Review: The Court established that no exercise of power under the Constitution is beyond judicial review, confirming that Articles 200 (Governor) and 201 (President) are subject to judicial scrutiny.
• Kerala Governor's Objection: The Kerala Governor contended that the Court's ruling constituted judicial overreach, asserting that only Parliament has the authority to amend the Constitution. While Parliament holds the power to amend the Constitution, the judiciary's role is to interpret and elucidate constitutional provisions.
• Constitution Bench Dispute: Some legal experts argue that the issues addressed by Justice Pardiwala's Bench should be reserved for a Constitution Bench under Article 145(3). However, the Court clarified that the concerns raised do not qualify as substantial questions of law as per Article 145(3).
• Court's Role in Upholding Constitutional Order: The Court aimed to restore the constitutional system by preventing the arbitrary and deliberate inaction of constitutional authorities. By elucidating the inherent meaning of Articles 200 and 201, the Court fortified the constitutional order.

Conclusion

The judgment serves as a guide for necessary changes in the Constitution regarding the President's approval of Bills, following the embarrassing situation years ago where the President delayed approving a postal Bill for an extended period. This highlights the importance of timely action by constitutional authorities to uphold the democratic process.