Governor cannot refer State Bills to President because of ‘personal dissatisfaction’: SC

Supreme Court rules Governor's reservation of State Bill to President must be based on valid reasons to be upheld.

The Supreme Court has held that reservation of a State Bill by a Governor for the consideration of the President on grounds like his personal dissatisfaction, political expediency or any other “extraneous or irrelevant considerations” is strictly impermissible by the Constitution.

A Governor’s reference of a Bill to the President for these reasons would be liable to be set aside forthwith by the Constitutional courts.

The court was interpreting Article 200, which deals with the role of the Governor in giving assent to Bills.

News Analysis: Supreme Court judgment on Tamil Nadu Governor addresses a Constitutional silence

The judgment, uploaded online close to midnight on April 12, declared Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi’s prolonged inaction over 10 crucial State Bills, withholding of consent on them and the subsequent reservation of the re-passed Bills to President Droupadi Murmu for her consideration on November 28, 2013, “erroneous in law and non-est”.

A Bench headed by Justice J.B. Pardiwala explained that the reservation of a Bill for consideration of the President would be solely on the grounds of great peril to democratic principles with clearly assigned reasons, the court said.

“Where the reservation of a Bill by the Governor for the consideration of the President is on the grounds of peril to democracy or democratic principles or on other exceptional grounds then the Governor would be expected to make a specific and clear reference to the President properly indicating the reasons for entertaining such a belief by pinpointing the specific provisions in this regard and the consequent effect that may ensue if such a Bill were to be allowed to become a law,” the judgment noted.