Supreme Court Empowers States in Governor's Legislative Delays

The Supreme Court has ruled that state governments can directly approach it if the President withholds assent to bills sent by a governor. This verdict, impacting Tamil Nadu's stalled bills, ensures judicial scrutiny of governors' and the President's decisions, reinforcing constitutional accountability.

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court has clarified that state governments can directly approach the court if the Governor reserves a bill for the President's consideration and the President withholds assent. This development arose from a plea by the Tamil Nadu government, which had experienced delays in the assent to bills passed by its assembly. The ruling is seen as a significant relief for the DMK-led Tamil Nadu administration, as it clears the backlog of 10 state bills awaiting presidential consideration.

A bench of justices, including J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, emphasized that both the Governor's and the President's actions regarding state legislation are subject to judicial oversight. The court's decision sets important precedents for the exercise of constitutional powers under Articles 200 and 201, which cover the Governor's options on assenting to bills and the President's role in considering reserved bills respectively.

The verdict outlines conditions under which states can challenge such reservations, particularly if done arbitrarily or in violation of democratic principles. The bench noted that personal dissatisfaction of the Governor or political motivations cannot justify withholding assent. This move strengthens accountability and urges governors and the President to adhere to constitutional limits, ensuring that state legislation is not unjustly stalled.

(With inputs from agencies.)