STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS GOVERNOR OF TAMIL NADU - POLITY
NEWS: The Supreme Court, in State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu & Anr., ruled that the Governor's inaction on State Bills was unconstitutional, asserting that the Governor must act on the advice of the Council of Ministers and cannot withhold assent indefinitely or refer Bills to the President without valid grounds.
WHAT’S IN THE NEWS?
• The Supreme Court recently delivered a landmark judgment in the case State of Tamil Nadu vs The Governor of Tamil Nadu, addressing the powers and responsibilities of Governors in approving state legislation.
• The conflict arose because the Governor of Tamil Nadu had not approved 12 Bills passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, some of which had been pending since 2020, without providing justifiable reasons or engaging with the state government.
• Instead of approving or returning the Bills, the Governor sent them directly to the President of India without consulting the elected state government, escalating the constitutional tension between the two institutions.
Key Question Before the Court
• The core legal issue was whether a Governor has the authority to delay or indefinitely withhold assent to Bills passed by a democratically elected state legislature.
• The Supreme Court firmly held that Governors do not have such discretionary powers and must act in accordance with constitutional boundaries.
Highlights of the Supreme Court Judgment
• The Governor is a constitutional figurehead, and not a political authority. Their role is largely ceremonial and bound by the advice of the elected Council of Ministers, led by the Chief Minister.
• Under Article 200 of the Constitution, a Governor has only three constitutionally valid options when a Bill is presented:
• Grant assent to the Bill and make it law.
• Return the Bill with recommendations for reconsideration (but if the legislature passes it again, the Governor is constitutionally required to give assent).
• Refer the Bill to the President—but only under specific constitutional circumstances, not arbitrarily.
• The Court categorically stated that a Governor cannot outright reject a Bill and cannot sit on it indefinitely to stall the legislative process.
• Although Article 361 provides personal immunity to the Governor from being sued, their official actions remain subject to judicial review. Courts can examine whether Governors acted within constitutional limits.
• Invoking Article 142, the Supreme Court exercised its extraordinary powers to ensure complete justice and declared that all 12 Bills in question were deemed to have received assent on the day they were first presented to the Governor. This was done to rectify the long delay and uphold the authority of the state legislature.
CONSTITUTIONAL POSITION OF THE GOVERNOR
• Bound by Aid and Advice: Under Article 163 and 200, the Governor is a nominal head and is constitutionally bound to act on the aid and advice of the elected State government, barring specific exceptions.
• No Absolute Veto: The Court rejected the Union's argument that Article 200 allows the Governor to withhold assent indefinitely, stating that such power would violate the principle of legislative supremacy.
• Governor is Not an Independent Authority: The Governor is not an autonomous constitutional actor but a constitutional functionary constrained by democratic norms and legal mandates.
ARTICLE 200 INTERPRETATION & COURT’S FINDINGS
• Limited Options Under Article 200: The Governor may only (1) grant assent, (2) withhold and return for reconsideration, or (3) reserve the Bill for President — with no fourth option of absolute rejection.
• No Personal Discretion in General Bills: Discretionary power is limited to cases affecting High Court powers, matters under Article 31C, or Bills threatening constitutional values — not ordinary State legislation.
• Judicial Review of Governor’s Conduct: Although Article 361 protects Governors from personal liability, their official actions are open to judicial scrutiny if they undermine constitutional governance.
SUPREME COURT’S REMEDY & FEDERAL IMPLICATIONS
• Doctrine of Deemed Assent: Using Article 142, the Court ruled that the 10 Bills re-passed by Tamil Nadu Assembly are deemed to have received assent on the date they were re-submitted to the Governor.
• Checks Against Federal Overreach: The ruling reinforces India’s federal architecture by curbing arbitrary interventions by centrally-appointed Governors in State legislation.
• Upholding Representative Democracy: The judgment reiterates that the Governor must uphold the will of the elected legislature and not act as a political disruptor.
Significance of the Judgment
• The ruling is a strong reinforcement of the principles of federalism, emphasizing that elected state governments should not be undermined by unelected Governors.
• The judgment makes it clear that Governors are not independent decision-makers but constitutional custodians who must act on the advice of the state cabinet unless the Constitution provides otherwise.
• It reiterates the supremacy of democratically elected bodies in a federal structure and ensures that no constitutional authority can act arbitrarily or delay governance processes.
• The Court issued a stern reminder that Governors are constitutional sentinels, not political agents, and must maintain neutrality and respect the will of the people represented by the elected legislature.
Way Forward and Broader Implications
• The ruling will set a national precedent, impacting how Governors in other states approach legislative matters and curbing arbitrary delays or political misuse of their powers.
• It strengthens institutional checks and balances by holding constitutional authorities accountable through judicial oversight.
• The judgment is a victory for cooperative federalism, ensuring that central appointees like Governors cannot obstruct the functioning of state governments without valid constitutional justification.
• Going forward, greater transparency, timely action, and respect for the democratic mandate will be expected from Governors across the country, reinforcing the health of India’s federal democracy.
Source: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/tamil-nadu-vs-governor-sc-verdict-may-create-imbalance-in-federal-structure/articleshow/120317257.cms