SC's GUV Verdict Victory for TN, Check on Imperial Excess

HE Supreme Court's verdict in State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu, delivered on April 8, is a major win for the non-negotiable constitutional ideals of federalism and representative democracy.

- ASHISH GOEL

The court's historic decision came in response to a writ petition filed by the Tamil Nadu government challenging the governor's exercise of "pocket veto" of 10 bills lawfully passed by the state Assembly.

The context is that the governor sat on 12 bills—some dating back to 2020—for several years. When the aggrieved state government approached the court in November 2023, the governor referred two bills for the President's consideration. Thereafter, the state Assembly convened a special session and re-passed the remaining 10 bills on which assent was withheld. When these 10 bills were re-presented before him, the governor referred them for President's consideration. Out of these 10 bills, only one bill was assented to by the President, while the remaining were either rejected or kept pending.

The court's decision evinces laudable temerity in exposing the governor's blatant disregard for the Constitution through practicing gubernatorial procrastination. Article 200 of the Constitution obliges the governor to adopt one of the following three options when a bill is presented before him: Grant assent, withhold assent, or reserve the bill for President's consideration.

The expression "as soon as possible" appearing in the first proviso to Article 200 mandates the governor to act with expediency. The Constitution nowhere envisages a "pocket veto" or "absolute veto" exercisable by the governor at will.