Context:
- Supreme Court Criticism: SC termed Governor R.N. Ravi’s inaction on 10 re-passed Bills as unconstitutional and a violation of Article 200.
- Assent Deemed Given: The court deemed the 10 Bills to have received assent, despite Presidential rejection or inaction.
- Time Limit Fixed: SC prescribed specific time frames (1–3 months) for Governors to act on Bills henceforth.
Relevance : GS 2(Polity , Constitution)
Constitutional Context:
- Article 200: Governor can:
- Give assent,
- Withhold assent,
- Reserve the Bill for President.
The phrase “as soon as possible” implies urgency, not indefinite delay (no pocket veto).
Governor’s Role Redefined:
- Must be a “friend, guide, and philosopher” to the State, not a “hindrance or roadblock.”
- Must act on aid and advice of the State Cabinet.
SC’s Time Limits for Assent:
- 1 Month: To withhold assent on Cabinet advice.
- 3 Months: To return the Bill with reasons (if withholding contrary to Cabinet advice).
- 3 Months: To reserve the Bill for President (if going against Cabinet).
- 1 Month: To give assent to a re-passed Bill.
Judicial Accountability:
- SC warned: “Governor’s inaction is subject to judicial review.”
- “Determinable judicial standards” must govern gubernatorial conduct.
Observations by Justice Pardiwala:
- No absolute or pocket veto exists.
- Withholding assent simpliciter (without reason) is unconstitutional.
- Re-passed Bills must be assented to — no personal discretion allowed.
Implications:
- Strengthens federal principles and legislative supremacy of elected State governments.
- Sets judicial precedent against misuse of constitutional discretion by Governors.
