The Supreme Court of India has set aside the decision of the Tamil Nadu Governor to reserve 10 Bills passed by the State Legislature for the assent of the President, holding that the Governor acted without bona fides and in a manner contrary to constitutional principles.
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court observed that the Governor’s prolonged inaction and subsequent decision to reserve the Bills could not be justified under the scheme of the Constitution. The Court emphasised that Governors are expected to act within the constitutional framework and not as political actors.
Background of the Case
The issue arose after the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly passed multiple Bills, which were kept pending by the Governor for an extended period. Eventually, instead of granting assent or returning the Bills for reconsideration, the Governor chose to reserve as many as 10 Bills for the consideration of the President of India.
This decision was challenged by the Tamil Nadu Government, which argued that the Governor’s conduct was arbitrary, delayed legislative functioning, and undermined the authority of the elected legislature.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court strongly criticised the Governor’s actions, stating that:
- The Governor cannot indefinitely withhold assent to Bills passed by the State Legislature
- The power to reserve Bills for the President must be exercised sparingly and for valid constitutional reasons
- The Governor’s conduct in the present case lacked bona fides and was inconsistent with constitutional morality
The Court reiterated that the Governor is a constitutional authority and not an independent decision-maker acting on personal discretion, except in limited circumstances explicitly recognised by the Constitution.
Verdict and Directions
Allowing the petition filed by the Tamil Nadu Government, the Supreme Court:
- Set aside the Governor’s decision to reserve the 10 Bills for the President’s assent
- Reaffirmed that constitutional authorities must act in a timely, fair, and non-arbitrary manner
- Emphasised the importance of respecting the legislative will of an elected State Assembly
Constitutional Significance
The judgment is significant as it reinforces the limits of the Governor’s powers under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution and clarifies that delays or misuse of discretionary powers can attract judicial scrutiny.
The ruling is expected to have a wider impact on Centre–State relations and the functioning of Governors across the country.
Source
Supreme Court
