WHY SC RULING ON TAMIL NADU GUV STANDS OUT: SPARINGLY USED POWERS INVOKED, STRONG MESSAGE SENT

THE CONTEXT: In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to effectively grant assent to 10 Bills that had been withheld by the Governor of Tamil Nadu. The Court also laid down a one-month time limit for Governors to decide on Bills—thereby curbing the practice of indefinite withholding (the so-called “pocket veto”).

BACKGROUND AND CONSTITUTIONAL POSITION OF THE GOVERNOR:

1. Appointment and Role of the Governor

• • The Governor is appointed by the President (Article 155), holds office during the President’s pleasure (Article 156), and acts as the constitutional head of the state.
  • The Constitution envisages a dual role—while formally heading the executive in the state, the Governor is ordinarily bound by the “aid and advice” of the Council of Ministers (Article 163).

 

2. Relevant Constitutional Provisions

• • Article 163: Lays down that there shall be a Council of Ministers with the Chief Minister at the head to aid and advise the Governor in the exercise of his functions, except in so far as he is by or under the Constitution required to exercise his functions in his discretion.
  • Article 200: Enumerates the powers of the Governor regarding assent to Bills passed by the state legislature. The Governor may:

1. Grant assent.

2. Withhold assent.

3. Return the Bill (if not a Money Bill) for reconsideration.

4. Reserve the Bill for the President’s consideration.

 

3. Lacuna in the Constitution

• • Article 200 uses phrases like “as soon as possible” for returning a Bill and does not explicitly prescribe a timeline. This has often been exploited by some Governors to sit on Bills indefinitely.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. Sarkaria Commission (1988)

• • Recommended that the Governor should ideally act on the advice of the Council of Ministers, except in rare instances specified in the Constitution.
  • Urged Governors to avoid politically partisan behavior, suggesting a clear demarcation between discretionary powers and mandatory assent.

 

2. Punchhi Commission (2010)

• • Re-emphasized the need for reducing friction between the Governor and state governments.
  • Called for clearer guidelines regarding the Governor’s discretionary powers and timelines for assent or withholding assent.

 

3. Shamsher Singh vs State of Punjab (1974)

• • The Supreme Court established that the Governor’s discretionary powers must be exercised in the rarest of rare situations; generally, the Governor is bound by ministerial advice.

KEY SUPREME COURT JUDGMENTS ON GOVERNOR’S DISCRETION

1. Rameshwar Prasad vs Union of India (2006)

• • Held that the Governor’s subjective opinion cannot be the basis for imposition of President’s Rule under Article 356.
  • Reaffirmed the need for constitutional propriety and neutrality.

 

2. Nabam Rebia and Bamang Felix vs Deputy Speaker (2016) – Arunachal Pradesh Case

• • Stated that the power to summon or prorogue the House does not lie solely with the Governor; it must largely flow from and align with the advice of the Council of Ministers.
  • Emphasized that withholding assent indefinitely is not permissible.

 

3. Punjab Legislative Assembly Case (2023)

• • Governor Banwarilal Purohit’s refusal to summon the Budget Session led to the Supreme Court stating that the Governor, as an unelected head, must act in accordance with constitutional norms and cannot impede normal lawmaking.

 

4. Tamil Nadu Assent Case (2025)

• • The Supreme Court went a step further, not only reiterating the unconstitutionality of indefinite withholding but also prescribing a one-month limit once the Bill is returned after reconsideration.
  • Under Article 142, the Court itself effectively granted assent to the pending 10 Bills given the Governor’s prolonged inaction, setting a precedent for “complete justice.”

CURRENT SCENARIO IN VARIOUS STATES:

1. Tamil Nadu

• • 10 Bills had been stalled by Governor R N Ravi for extended periods.
  • Supreme Court has declared the withholding of assent as unconstitutional and virtually “assented” to the Bills.

 

2. Kerala

• • Multiple Bills, including those relating to Lok Ayukta amendments, have been awaiting assent for over one to two years.
  • The state government has moved the Supreme Court, citing similar grounds as in Tamil Nadu.

 

3. Telangana

• • Over 10 key Bills, including seven sent in September 2022, remain pending with Governor Tamilisai Soundararajan.
  • This delay has raised debates over constitutional propriety.

 

4. Punjab

• • The AAP government faced resistance from Governor Banwarilal Purohit on summoning the Budget Session.
  • Supreme Court underlined that while the Governor has certain discretionary powers, these cannot be used to paralyze the lawmaking process.

THE CHALLENGES:

1. ‘Pocket Veto’ by Governors

• • Sitting on Bills indefinitely effectively undermines the legislative mandate of an elected government.
  • Raises serious concerns over democratic accountability and constitutional morality.

 

2. Politicization of the Governor’s Office

• • Governors are often seen as appointees of the Union government, leading to tensions in states ruled by rival political parties.
  • This can result in a constitutional impasse, eroding cooperative federalism.

 

3. Impact on Separation of Powers

• • Excessive judicial intervention (as in the Tamil Nadu case) indicates the friction between different organs of government.
  • While the Supreme Court ensures “complete justice,” repeated interventions suggest systemic fault lines in the executive-legislative relationship.

 

4. Frequent Litigation

• • With multiple states challenging gubernatorial actions, the courts are increasingly drawn into deciding matters that ideally should be resolved within the constitutional framework and through dialogue.

 

5. Administrative Logjam

• • Delayed assent stifles policy implementation, budgeting, and welfare measures.
  • Governance suffers when key Bills related to public spending, social justice, or economic reform are stalled.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SUPREME COURT VERDICT:

1. Strengthening Constitutional Morality

• • By prescribing timelines, the Court ensures that the Governor’s constitutional duty is performed in a time-bound manner.
  • Safeguards democratic mandates and prevents indefinite delays.

 

2. Reaffirmation of the ‘Aid and Advice’ Principle

• • Reinforces that the Governor’s discretion is not absolute and must be exercised in accordance with constitutional provisions and established norms.

 

3. Setting a Precedent

• • The Court’s decision in the Tamil Nadu case is likely to act as a template for future disputes—putting an end to indefinite withholding of assent.
  • May expedite the resolution of pending cases, such as in Kerala and Telangana.

 

4. Expansion of Judicial Oversight

• • The use of Article 142 to directly grant assent underscores the judiciary’s readiness to fill constitutional voids to uphold legislative intent and federal balance.

THE WAY FORWARD AND REFORM MEASURES:

1. Legislative or Constitutional Amendment

• • Introduction of explicit timeframes in the Constitution or relevant state legislations, mandating the Governor to decide on assent within a fixed period (for instance, 2-3 months).
  • This could remove ambiguity and reduce scope for misuse.

 

2. Revival of Commission Recommendations

• • Parliament and state legislatures could revisit key recommendations of the Sarkaria and Punchhi Commissions to clarify the Governor’s role and powers.
  • Formal guidelines—either through a Constitutional amendment or an executive resolution—could institutionalize best practices.

 

3. Enhanced Cooperative Federalism

• • Regular dialogue between the Raj Bhavan and the state government to resolve contentious issues early on.
  • Mechanisms such as Inter-State Council or informal consultative groups could foster cooperation.

 

4. Need for a Neutral Governor’s Office

• • Appointment of Governors who are perceived as non-partisan, respecting the spirit of the Constitution.
  • Ensuring that the selection process emphasizes constitutional expertise and neutrality.

 

5. Judicial Restraint with Stronger Constitutional Clarity

• • Judicial activism, though helpful in resolving impasses, should be complemented by clearer statutes to minimize recurring litigation.
  • Reinforcing the principle that governance must happen primarily through political processes rather than judicial mandates.

THE CONCLUSION:

The Supreme Court’s intervention addresses long-standing concerns regarding the misuse of constitutional ambiguities for political ends and sets a strong precedent for upholding democratic mandates. Ultimately, the balance of power envisaged by the Constitution—where the Governor acts largely on the advice of the elected government—must be maintained for the smooth functioning of India’s federal democratic system.

UPSC PAST YEAR QUESTION:

Q. Discuss the essential conditions for exercise of the legislative powers by the Governor. Discuss the legality of re-promulgation of ordinances by the Governor without placing them before the Legislature. 2022

MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION:

Q. Discuss the constitutional provisions related to the Governor’s assent to Bills passed by the State Legislature in India. Analyze the implications of the recent Supreme Court ruling that prescribed specific timelines for Governors to act on such Bills.

SOURCE:

https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-law/why-sc-ruling-on-tamil-nadu-governors-powers-stands-out-sparingly-used-powers-invoked-strong-message-sent-9933048/

Spread the Word