The Supreme Court of India has ruled that the Tamil Nadu Governor’s action of reserving 10 re-enacted Bills for the President’s assent in November 2024 was illegal and erroneous. The court invoked Article 142 to ensure “complete justice” and laid down clear timelines and limitations on gubernatorial powers under Article 200.
Key Judicial Findings:
- No Reservation After Re-enactment:
- A Governor cannot reserve a Bill for the President’s consideration after it has been re-enacted by the state legislature.
- Reservation is allowed only once, when the Bill is first presented.
- No Absolute or Pocket Veto:
- The Constitution does not allow an “absolute veto” or indefinite delay (pocket veto) by Governors.
- Once a Bill is returned and re-enacted, the Governor must give assent.
- Governor Must Follow Cabinet Advice:
- Under Article 200, the Governor must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, except under specific exceptions (Article 163(1) and the 2nd proviso to Article 200).
- Exception Clause:
- The only time a Governor can reconsider reservation in the second round is if the re-enacted Bill is materially different from the original one.
Timelines Prescribed by the Court for Governors:
| Situation | Timeline |
|---|---|
| Withholding assent | 1 month |
| Withholding assent contrary to State Cabinet advice | 3 months |
| Bills returned and re-presented to Governor | 1 month |
Relevant Constitutional Provisions:
🔹 Article 200 – Governor’s Options When a Bill Is Presented:
- Grant assent
- Withhold assent
- Return the Bill (not a Money Bill) for reconsideration
- Reserve the Bill for President’s consideration
If the Bill is returned and passed again by the Assembly, the Governor must assent to it.
🔹 Article 142 – Complete Justice: Allows the Supreme Court to pass any order necessary to ensure complete justice in a matter before it.
