Font size:
Print
Strengthening the Republic: Supreme Court’s Bold Stand on Federalism in Tamil Nadu
What has the SC ruled on the T.N. Governor?
Context: Recently , the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark verdict in State of Tamil Nadu vs The Governor of Tamil Nadu and Anr., holding the inaction of Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi over 10 pending Bills as illegal and unconstitutional.
About the Case
- The case involved 12 Bills, including ones aimed at removing the Governor’s role in appointing Vice-Chancellors.
- Despite being passed by the State Legislature, the Governor delayed assent and referred some Bills to the President without proper justification.
Constitutional Provisions Involved
Article 200 – Assent to Bills
- When a Bill is presented to the Governor, he can:
- Grant assent
- Withhold assent and return it for reconsideration
- Reserve it for President’s consideration
- The first provision to Article 200 states: if the Bill is returned and passed again by the Assembly, the Governor is bound to give assent.
- Money Bills do not require the Governor’s assent and are deemed to be assented.
- The State government approached the Supreme Court in 2023, highlighting the breakdown of constitutional machinery due to prolonged gubernatorial inaction.
Supreme Court’s Interpretation and Key Rulings
- Invalidating the “Pocket Veto”
-
- The Court rejected indefinite inaction by the Governor (known as a pocket veto) as unconstitutional.
- Use of the term “shall” in Article 200 mandates prompt action, not discretionary delay.
- Inaction subverts representative democracy and federal balance.
- No Absolute Veto Power
-
- The Court held that withholding assent is not equivalent to rejecting a Bill outright.
- A Governor cannot exercise an independent veto; the action must be guided by Cabinet advice.
- Limits on Reserving Bills for the President
-
- A Governor cannot reserve Bills based on personal dissatisfaction or political expediency.
- Reservation is only allowed:
- When a Bill threatens the powers of the High Court (Article 200, second proviso),
- When presidential assent is explicitly mandated (e.g., Article 31C),
- Or when the Bill fundamentally undermines constitutional values.
- Timelines Prescribed by the Court
To prevent obstruction of State legislation, the Court prescribed clear deadlines:
- Reasonable delays may be condoned, but must be justified and communicated.
- Judicial Review of Gubernatorial Action
-
- Gubernatorial discretion is subject to judicial review, despite personal immunity under Article 361.
- The Court cited Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006) to assert that unconstitutional actions of Governors can be legally scrutinised.
- Invocation of Article 142
-
- To prevent continued stalemate, the Court invoked Article 142 to ensure complete justice.
- It deemed the 10 Bills as having received assent on the date they were re-presented to the Governor.
This extraordinary step was justified due to the Governor’s “scant respect” for prior judgments.
Significance of the Judgment
-
- Reinforcement of Federalism: Upholds the principle that the Governor is not an agent of the Centre, but a constitutional head bound by ministerial advice.
- Legislative Process Protected: Prevents executive obstruction of the people’s mandate and legislative business.
- Creation of Legal Safeguards
-
- The ruling introduces a “deemed assent” doctrine, preventing misuse of office.
- Prescribes structured timelines for assent and reservation, enhancing governance accountability.
- Broader Judicial Implications: May set a precedent for addressing delays in judicial appointments or other constitutional processes facing executive obstruction.
Criticism and Counterview
- Some may argue this is judicial overreach. However, the Court avoided a writ of mandamus, which could not be enforced against the Governor.
- The use of Article 142 is seen as a pragmatic response to a constitutional impasse rather than an overstep.
