Why the SC's Judgment in R.N. Ravi Case Restores the Autonomy of Elected State Legislatures

The Narendra Modi regime’s appointee R.N. Ravi, who is presently occupying the high constitutional post of the  Governor of  Tamil Nadu, has been slammed by the Supreme Court for acting in an unconstitutional, illegal and erroneous manner by taking no action on 10 bills passed by the State legislature.

The apex court, in its landmark judgment in the “The State of Tamil Nadu vs The Governor of Tamil Nadu” case chastised Ravi for sitting on the Bills. Even when these Bills were passed by the state assembly for a second time without any delay after the Governor returned them for reconsideration, Ravi had sent those for the consideration of the President of India.

The extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution mandate the Supreme Court to do "complete justice" between the parties where, at times, the law or statute may not provide a remedy.

Ravi’s actions with regards to the 10 bills were based on political considerations

The top court took a momentous decision by declaring that these Bills are deemed to have received assent from the date submitted to the Governor.

It also made an extraordinary declaration that President Droupadi Murmu's actions – assenting to only one, rejecting seven, and not considering two – are null and void.

Such a judgement of the Supreme Court is historic, constituting a landmark in the evolution of constitutional law in India in defence of co-operative federalism.

It is worth recalling that in April 2023, Ravi had spun an unconstitutional narrative that if a Governor withheld assent to a Bill passed by the Assembly, it meant that the "Bill is dead."

His statement negated the very Constitution to which he is oath bound, under its Article 159, to “preserve, protect and defend.” In fact, the Supreme Court also flagged the sanctity of the oath taken by Ravi and underlined that a  Governor must act in accordance with the “settled conventions of Parliamentary democracy” without in any way getting vitiated by political considerations.

Ravi’s actions with regards to the 10 bills were based on political considerations and not on the Constitution and constitutional morality which he is duty bound to uphold. By doing so, Ravi and other occupants of the Governor’s post in non-BJP ruled States are bent upon paralysing the elected governments and negating the mandate they got from people to govern.

Partisan behaviour of Governors in non-BJP ruled states

In several non-BJP ruled states, Governors wilfully did not dispose of Bills passed by the respective state legislatures as provided in Article 200 of the Constitution. It prescribes that a Governor shall dispose of a Bill approved by the state assembly by exercising choices in giving his/her assent to the Bill (b) withholding assent therefrom; or (c) reserving the Bill for the President's consideration.

It also, among others, provide that “The Governor may, as soon as possible, return the Bill (other than a Money Bill) with a message for re-consideration by the state legislature. But, if the Bill is again passed by the Legislature with or without amendment, the Governor shall not withhold assent therefrom”.

The phrase “as soon as possible” obviously does not prescribe a timeline within which the Bills submitted to the Governor are to be disposed of. Therefore, several Governors in the past and more specifically those in non-BJP ruled States after 2014 have taken advantage of the absence of timeline and persistently sat on Bills without disposing them of.

The Supreme Court in 2016 in the Arunachal Pradesh Assembly case (Nabam Rebia and Bamang Felix vs Deputy Speaker), had said that that the phrase “as soon as possible’ does not mean that “the Governor cannot withhold assent to a Bill indefinitely but must return it to the Assembly with a message, and this could include his recommendation for amendments to the Bill”. Such remarks were discarded with impunity by Governors in non-BJP States.

In 2023, Punjab Governor Banwarilal Purohit did not give assent to certain Bills passed by the state legislature, in which the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) has a majority. The top court chided him for not remitting it to the state assembly for its reconsideration under Article 200.

After sitting on several Bills for more than two years, Kerala Governor Arif Mohammed Khan referred seven of those to President Droupadi Murmu for her consideration in November 2023.

In Telangana, more than 10 key Bills were pending with (former) Governor Tamilisai Soundararajan, and seven of those Bills were passed by the Assembly and sent for the Governor's assent in September 2022.

 Timeline for disposal of bills

It is against such sordid record of Governors, that the SC ruling on Tamil Nadu Governor giving a timeline for disposal of Bills is a huge step towards the autonomy of the elected state legislatures. It rightly restores the power of the legislature over an unelected Governor and streamlines his/her functions in tune with the constitutional morality.

It is a very significant development that the Supreme Court gave a timeline for the disposal of the Bills. It stated that a Governor can take a decision within one month to withhold assent or reserve the Bill for President. In case of withholding the assent to the Bill against the advice of the Council of Ministers, the Governor must return it to the legislature within three months.

If the Governor decides to withhold assent or reserve the Bill for the President – on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers – such action must be taken within one month.

If the Governor withholds assent contrary to the advice of the Council of Ministers, the Bill must be returned to the legislature within three months.

If a Bill is re-passed and re-presented by the legislature, the Governor must grant assent within one month.

If the Governor reserves the Bill for the President, again contrary to advice, this too must be done within three months.

Also Read: Speaker Om Birla’s Conduct Undermines Parliamentary Conventions and Opposition’s Voice

The President of India must dispose of the Bills sent by a Governor of a state within a period of three months.

Such a timeline given by the SC closely corresponds to the time frame recommended by Sarkaria Commission on Centre -State relations. Instead of three months mandated by the Supreme Court for the President to decide on Bills sent by Governor, the commission had suggested four months.

It quoted constitutional expert D.D. Basu, who, referring to the powers of governors to refer Bills to the president, had said, “…its use cannot be extended to such an extent as to install the Union executive over the head of the state’s legislature in matters legislative.”

The milestone decision of the Supreme Court fructifies that vision.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.