"Pocket Veto Impermissible" : Supreme Court Lays Down Timelines For Governor's Actions On Bills Under Article 200

In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court on Tuesday (April 8) set time limits for the decisions by the Governors under Article 200 of the Constitution on the bills sent to them by the State Legislative Assemblies.

The Court made it clear that the Constitution does not permit the Governor to exercise "absolute veto" or "pocket veto" by not taking any action on the bills indefinitely.

While declaring the actions of the Tamil Nadu Governor, Dr RN Ravi, for sitting over the 10 Bills for months after it was re-enacted by the Tamil Nadu State Legislature and subsequently reserving it for the President's assent as illegal and erroneous in law, the Supreme Court held that Article 200 cannot be read in a manner which allows the Governor to indefinitely sit over bills.

A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, which pronounced the judgment, held that although there is no explicit time limit prescribed for the Governor to either give assent, withhold assent, or reserve it for the President, the use of the expression "as soon as possible" in the first proviso to Article 200 makes it clear that the decision must be taken expeditiously.

The judgment authored by Justice Pardiwala observed :

Neither the concept of pocket veto nor absolute veto find a place within the constitutional scheme and mechanism envisaged in Article 200 of the Constitution. The substantive part of Article 200 consciously uses the expression 'shall declare' which signifies there is no scope of inaction and whenever the Bill is presented to the Governor, he is under the constitutional obligation to adopt one of the three courses of action available to him. Further, the expression 'as soon as possible' permeates Article 200 with the sense of expediency and does not allow the Governor to sit on the Bills to sit on the Bills and exercise pocket veto over them. Similarly, by virtue of first proviso being intrinsically and inextricably attached to the option of withholding of assent, there is no scope for the Governor to declare a simpliciter withholding of assent, meaning thereby absolute veto is also impermissible under Article 200. It goes without saying that the scheme of Article 200 is characterised by the movement of a bill from one constitutional authority to another and that too with the sense of expediency.

The Court drew support from precedents, including the Perarivalan case, which held that when no express time limit is prescribed for an action, the same must be exercised in a reasonable time. The Court observed that prescribing a time-limit for Article 200 decisions does not amount to amending the Constitution.

Prescribing a general time limit by this Court within which the ordinary exercise of power by the Governor under Article 200 must take place is not the same thing as amending the text of the Constitution to read a time limit. Thereby, fundamentally changing the procedural mechanism for Article 200. Prescription of a timeline within the scheme of Article 200 is with a view to lay down a determinable judicial standard for ascertaining reasonable exercise of such powers and to curtail any arbitrary action. This Court by prescribing a time limit for such powers is guided by its inherent expedient nature of the procedure prescribed under Article 200. 

Timelines

"Keeping in mind the constitutional significance of Article 200 and the role it plays in the federal polity of the country, the following timelines are being prescribed. Failure to comply with the timelines will make the action of the Governor subject to judicial review," the Court observed.

1. In case of withholding assent or reservation of the Bill for consideration of the President upon aid and advice of the State's Council of Ministers, the Governor is expected to take such actions forthwith subject to a maximum period of 1 month.

2. In case of withholding assent contrary to the advice of the State's Council of Ministers, the Governor must return the Bill together with a message within a maximum period of 3 months.

3. In case of reservation of Bills for consideration of the President, contrary to advice of the State Council of Ministers, the Governor shall make such reservation within a maximum period of 3 months or 

4. In case of reservation of Bills after reconsideration in accordance with the first proviso, the Governor must grant assent forthwith subject to a maximum period of 1 month (This means that bills re-enacted by the Assembly after they were sent back by the Governor, must be assented by the Governor in the second round within one month).

The Court has stated that as a general rule, the Governor must act with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers and the only exception can be traced in the second proviso to Articles 200 and 163, respectively. The Court has relied upon the Government of India Act, 1935, which had used the words 'in his discretion' but it was subsequently removed in Article 200 of the Constitution.

"Only instances where the Governor by or is under the constitutional requirement to act in his discretion would he be justified in exercising his powers under Article 200 contrary to the advice of Council of Ministers. Any discretion by the Governor in exercise of powers under Article 200 is amenable to judicial review."