SC’s Landmark Judgment on Gubernatorial Authority

Context

The Supreme Court of India, in its recent judgment in State of Tamil Nadu vs The Governor of Tamil Nadu, has redefined the constitutional boundaries of the Governor’s role, reaffirming the principles of federalism and democratic accountability. Delivered by Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, the ruling addresses critical constitutional questions surrounding the Governor’s powers and responsibilities under Article 200 of the Indian Constitution.

Constitutional Context and Core Issue

• The case arose from a prolonged standoff between the Tamil Nadu government and Governor R.N. Ravi over delays in granting assent to 12 Bills passed by the State Legislature, some pending since 2020. Among these were Bills aimed at curbing the Governor’s role in appointing Vice-Chancellors to public universities—a contentious issue reflecting tensions between elected governments and Governors appointed by the Union.
• The central constitutional question was whether a Governor could indefinitely withhold assent to Bills passed by a State Legislature, effectively stalling governance. The Tamil Nadu government argued that such delays violated Article 200, which outlines specific actions a Governor can take upon receiving a Bill: granting assent, withholding assent and returning it for reconsideration, or reserving it for Presidential assent.

Limits of Gubernatorial Power

• Article 200: A Constitutional Framework: The Court emphasized that Article 200 does not grant Governors unchecked discretion. It outlined three permissible actions:
  • Granting assent to a Bill.
  • Withholding assent while returning it to the Assembly for reconsideration.
  • Reserving the Bill for Presidential consideration.

The Court rejected any interpretation suggesting an implied “pocket veto,” where a Governor could indefinitely delay action without explanation or process. It cited Constituent Assembly Debates to highlight that framers deliberately omitted phrases like “in his discretion” from Article 200, underscoring that Governors must act on the advice of the Council of Ministers.

• Judicial Precedent: The Court referred to its earlier ruling in State of Punjab vs Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab (2023), which held that Governors cannot use indefinite delays as a tool to veto legislation. By reiterating this principle, the Court clarified that gubernatorial powers are not autonomous but are bound by constitutional morality.

Judicial Review and Accountability

• Governor’s Actions Under Scrutiny: While Article 361 grants personal immunity to Governors, their actions are not beyond judicial review. The Court cited Rameshwar Prasad vs Union of India (2006) to affirm that any obstruction of legislative processes by a Governor is subject to judicial oversight. In this case, the Court found that Governor Ravi acted unconstitutionally by referring Bills to the President without following due process or consulting the Council of Ministers. Such actions were deemed violative of constitutional norms and detrimental to State governance.
• Timelines for Action: To prevent future misuse of power, the Court established clear deadlines:
  • One month for withholding assent or reserving a Bill for Presidential consideration.
  • Three months for returning a Bill without ministerial advice.
  • One month for granting assent to a re-passed Bill.
• Extraordinary Powers Under Article 142: Recognizing the practical challenges in enforcing compliance, the Supreme Court invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 to ensure “complete justice.” It declared that all 10 Bills withheld by the Governor would be deemed to have received assent on the date they were re-presented after being passed again by the Assembly. While this unprecedented step may raise concerns about judicial overreach, the Court justified it as necessary to resolve a constitutional deadlock and uphold democratic principles.

Broader Implications

• Reaffirmation of Federal Principles: The judgment underscores that Governors, despite being Union appointees, are not autonomous actors but constitutional functionaries bound by ministerial advice. Their role is not to obstruct governance but to act as facilitators within India’s federal framework.
• Impact on State Governance: For Tamil Nadu, this ruling clears legislative roadblocks and enables implementation of crucial laws. Beyond Tamil Nadu, it sets a precedent for other states facing similar conflicts with their Governors.
• Guidance for Future Disputes: By delineating clear boundaries around gubernatorial powers, this judgment provides enduring guidance for resolving such disputes within India’s federal machinery.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in State of Tamil Nadu vs The Governor of Tamil Nadu is a landmark affirmation of constitutional morality and democratic accountability. It reinforces the primacy of elected institutions in governance while drawing clear limits on gubernatorial authority. By addressing both immediate controversies and broader systemic issues, this ruling strengthens India’s federal structure and upholds its democratic ideals.

Source: The Hindu

Download as PDF