A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan ruled that it was not open for the Governor to reserve a bill for the President, which was re-presented by the state government after being passed again by the Assembly.

It said the reservation of 10 bills by the Governor for the President's assent was illegal and, therefore, liable to be set aside.

Holding that the Governor did not act bona fide, the Supreme Court said the Bills were deemed to have been assented to by the Governor on the date when they were re-presented to him.

In its detailed opinion, the Justice Pardiwala-led Bench said the Governor can reserve a re-adopted Bill for the consideration of the President when the Bill presented in the second round is different from the first version. Also, the apex court laid down that there was no scope for the Governor to simplictor declare withholding assent, adding that under Article 200 of the Constitution, the Governor does not possess any discretion and has to mandatorily act on the aid and advice of the Chief Minister and his council of ministers.

In February this year, the apex court reserved its decision in the matter after hearing the oral arguments of Attorney General (AG) R. Venkataramani, the top-most law officer of the Centre and senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Mukul Rohtagi, appearing on behalf of the Tamil Nadu government.

The Tamil Nadu government had filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court claiming that the Governor had positioned himself as a "political rival" to the legitimately elected state government. The Governor had returned 10 out of 12 Bills pending with him for his assent after a notice was issued by the Supreme Court on the Tamil Nadu government's plea.

After the Tamil Nadu Assembly in a special session re-adopted 10 bills, which were sent back by the Governor for reconsideration, he referred some of them to the President.

During the course of the hearing, the Justice Pardiwala-led Bench had asked the AG Venkataramani if the Tamil Nadu Governor could simply sit over the Bills passed by the Assembly under the impression that they were repugnant to the Constitution and not communicating his opinion to the legislature.

"If the Governor is prima facie of the view that the bill suffers from repugnancy, should it not bring it to the notice of the state government? How is the government expected to know what is in the mind of the Governor? If repugnancy is something that troubled the Governor, the Governor should have immediately brought it to the notice of the government, and the Assembly could have reconsidered the bills," the apex court had said.

In November last year, the top court raised questions over the delay by Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi in giving assent to the Bills passed by the state legislature. After it was told that the Governor returned 10 out of 12 Bills pending with him for his assent, the SC asked: "These Bills have been pending since January 2020. It means that the Governor took the decision after the court issued the notice. What was he doing for three years? Why should the Governor wait for the parties to approach the Supreme Court?"

According to Article 200 of the Constitution, if a Bill is passed again, with or without amendments, and is presented to the Governor for assent, he has to accord his approval.