KEY RULING:

• A Governor cannot reserve a Bill for the President’s consideration when:
  • The Bill, earlier rejected by the Governor, is re-presented by the State Legislature after being re-passed.

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE:

• The case involved the Tamil Nadu Governor and 10 Bills:
  • Initially, the Governor withheld consent under Article 200.
  • After the Bills were re-passed, he chose to refer them to the President instead of granting assent.

SUPREME COURT OBSERVATIONS:

1. Timing of Reservation:

• If the Governor intended to reserve the Bill for the President:
  • He should have done it in the first instance, not after reconsideration.
• The decision to refer the Bills after re-passage was termed “not bona fide”.

2. Governor’s Obligation After Reconsideration:

• Under the first proviso to Article 200, once the Bill is re-passed:
  • The Governor must grant assent forthwith, or at most within one month.
• It is not open to the Governor to reserve it for the President after reconsideration.
• The use of “shall not withhold assent” places a clear obligation on the Governor.

CONSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT:

1. Article 200 – Provisions:

• Gives Governor the power to:
  • Assent to the Bill
  • Withhold assent
  • Reserve for President
  • Return (if not a money Bill)
• But after re-presentation, Governor is bound to assent.

2. Removal of Discretion:

• The phrase “in his discretion” present in Section 75 of the Government of India Act, 1935:
  • Was omitted when adopted into Article 200 of the Constitution.
• This shows that any discretionary power to reserve Bills was removed with the Constitution’s commencement.