Guv’s discretion can’t override constitutional provisions: SC
The Supreme Court has underscored that a governor’s inherent powers cannot override constitutional provisions, expressing a “prima facie” view that withholding assent to a bill requires its return to the state legislature, not subsequent referral to the President at the governor’s discretion.
A bench comprising justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan made these observations while hearing the Tamil Nadu government’s plea against governor RN Ravi’s actions to withhold assent and, in some instances, refer bills to the President years after their enactment.
The court scrutinised the governor’s authority under Article 200 of the Constitution, questioning whether a governor, after withholding assent, could later reserve the bill for Presidential consideration.
The Tamil Nadu government, through senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Rakesh Dwivedi and P Wilson, have contended that this practice allowed the Governor to act as a “superlative authority” over the state legislature, effectively undermining the legislative process.
After hearing the two sides, the Supreme Court on Monday reserved its verdict on the matter, setting the stage for a landmark ruling that could redefine the constitutional boundaries of gubernatorial authority.
This case has broader implications, particularly amid growing tensions between Raj Bhavans and elected governments in several non-BJP-ruled states.
Similar disputes have emerged in Punjab, Kerala and Telangana, with the Supreme Court intervening to ensure governors expedite decision-making processes.