The Supreme Court was interpreting Article 200, which deals with the role of the Governor in giving assent to Bills. File | Photo Credit: Aman Raj 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”. …