The Supreme Court has quashed the Tamil Nadu Governor’s decision to reserve 10 bills for the President. The Supreme Court has observed that any action taken by the president on the bills is unconstitutional in law. Therefore, this action has been quashed.The verdict came after the Tamil Nadu government filed a petition against Governor R. N. Ravi for withholding approval of several bills passed by the state legislature and setting up search and selection committees for the appointment of vice-chancellors in three universities.Chief Minister M.K. Stalin has also welcomed the Supreme Court’s verdict against the Tamil Nadu Governor. He called the decision historic. Stalin further said, “The state assembly sent several bills to Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi after passing them in the assembly for the second time, but the governor did not approve them. They were delaying the assent of the bills. And they were claiming that they had the authority. We challenged this in the Supreme Court, and based on our petition, the Supreme Court said that the delay in assent by the Governor is against the Constitution of India. And all pending bills will be deemed to have been approved.”In a landmark judgment on the powers of the Governor, the Supreme Court on Tuesday quashed Tamil Nadu Governor R. N. Ravi’s decision to withhold assent to 10 pending bills, calling it illegal and wrong in law. The time limit for the Governor’s decision on bills passed by the Legislative Assembly under Article 200 has been fixed. A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said, “All actions taken by the Governor in respect of the 10 Bills are set aside. The 10 bills shall be deemed to have been passed from the date of re-submission to the Governor. The Governor shall act with the aid and advice of the Cabinet. There is no way for the Governor to simply withhold assent. Bills passed by the state under Article 200 are supposed to have the force of law. And without this assent, the bills are merely documents of aspirations, which are not implemented.”The court further clarified that, “When a bill is presented to the Governor after further deliberation in the State Assembly, he is required to give his assent to it. He can refuse his assent only if the bill is different. The governor cannot sit on bills and use a pocket veto on them. There has to be a sense of convenience in it.” Dr. Grishma Khobragade, a legal scholar, expressed the opinion that, “No one can go beyond the provisions of the Indian Constitution. Even the governor of any state is no exception. The legislature of any state is more important. This verdict given by the Supreme Court in the state of Tamil Nadu is truly historic. This proves that no one can go against the law. This decision of the Supreme Court will have an impact on other states as well.”Ritesh P Khot, a legel scholar stated in this case that, “In past governor were mentor, guide to state but in modern politics they have established themselves as a SPY of the central government.Working of governor doesn’t qualifies democratic values now a days .However in last few years has seen rising tension with governor delaying bills and state going to judiciary.Consider as head of state( Father of state)in past now has limited himself as a puppet of central government ” sad thing for democracy”This decision has implications for the role of governors in opposition-ruled states, as opposition parties have politically tense relations with the Centre.It is also being expressed that the Supreme Court’s decision will have an impact on other opposition-ruled states, including Kerala, West Bengal, and Punjab.
By Dr. Anupriya Gaikwad
For True to Life News Media Pvt. Ltd.