Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 1239/2023
FACTS:
On November 10, 2023, the Supreme Court of India addressed a critical constitutional issue regarding the delay caused by the Governor of Tamil Nadu, Ravindra Narayana Ravi, in granting assent to twelve bills enacted by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly. The Court expressed that this delay caused a “serious concern, ” potentially leading to a constitutional deadlock and hindering the state’s governance. This situation gave rise to a political and constitutional conflict between the State Government, which is led by the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) under the Chief Minister Muthuvel Karunanidhi Stalin, and the Governor of Tamil Nadu, R.N. Ravi. The Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly had passed 12 bills, back in 2020, which included reforms in higher education, universities, and anti-corruption measures. The Governor violated Article 200 of the Constitution of India as he neither assented to the bill nor forwarded it to the President. He also didn’t provide any appropriate reasons regarding this issue. He was also accused of stalling files, and the petition claimed that the Governor was conducting review meetings with officials, bypassing the elected government — a breach of constitutional propriety. The Tamil Nadu government requested the Supreme Court to direct the Governor to decide on pending bills within a specified timeframe and to refrain from interfering in executive matters beyond his constitutional role.
ISSUES RAISED
1)If Article 200 is violated by the Governor of Tamil Nadu with his delay in assenting to the 12 bills, which included reforms in higher education, universities, and anti-corruption measures?
2)If the Governor has absolute discretion or is bound to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers in deciding not to act on bills passed by an elected government?
3) Whether the Governor was conducting meetings with civil servants independently, without involving the elected government, or not?
PETITIONER CONTENTION
•The Governor violated Article 200 of the Constitution of India by causing unreasonable delay of more than 2 years in assenting to the 12 bills passed by the elected state government.
•The Governor violated Article 163 of the Constitution of India by not acting on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers except in matters requiring discretion (which this is not).
•The Governor’s acting autonomously resulted in the creation of a parallel administration, which violates constitutional norms and principles.
•The Governor also violated Article 154 by not vesting the executive power of the state with the elected government.
•The State argued that the Supreme Court must intervene to direct the Governor to act within a specific time frame on bills and prevent the Governor from paralyzing governance.
•By failing to authorize critical executive decisions, the Governor has hindered effective governance, resulting in a constitutional impasse.
RESPONDENT CONTENTION
•The Governor argued that he is empowered to withhold or grant an assent and return a bill (if not a money bill) along with a reservation of a bill for the President’s consideration, which concludes that his actions are within Article 200 of the Constitution of India and do not violate the constitutional provisions.
•The Respondent argued that his actions are constitutionally valid because after the Tamil Nadu Assembly re-passed 10 bills without amendments, the Governor reserved them for the President’s consideration.
•The Governor only assumed office in November 2021, and the delay was reasonable due to the need for thorough legal and constitutional examination, especially for bills with significant implications, as explained by the Attorney General.
•The Union of India argued that the actions of the Governor do not represent a constitutional crisis as defined by Article 356, thereby rendering judicial intervention unnecessary.
•The respondent stated that under Article 163(2) of the Constitution of India, the Governor’s decision must be considered final and cannot be challenged in any Court. So, his actions are beyond judicial review, and he is not answerable to anyone for his actions.
RATIONALE
The judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (decided on April 8, 2025) articulated a thorough rationale concerning the constitutional functions and constraints of a State Governor concerning legislative assent. The Court’s analysis encompassed several critical domains, such as the limitation of Article 200, and the options are mutually exclusive and must be exercised following constitutional provisions. Upon the Governor’s decision to withhold assent and subsequent re-passage of the bill by the Legislature, the Governor is constitutionally mandated to confer assent. The Court dismissed the concept of an ‘absolute veto’ or ‘pocket veto,’ which would allow a Governor to indefinitely withhold assent without taking any action. If the Legislature re-passes a bill after reconsideration, the Governor must grant assent within one month. Exercising its authority under Article 142 of the Constitution, which empowers the Supreme Court to issue any decree or order deemed essential for the administration of complete justice, the Court ruled that the ten bills retained by the Governor are to be considered as having received assent. This exceptional action was taken to resolve the constitutional deadlock and reinforce the legislative intent of the State Assembly.
DEFECTS OF LAW
Here, in the case of The State of Tamil Nadu v. The Governor of Tamil Nadu, showed several legal defects and concerns. Firstly, this indefinite delay is mainly caused by Article 200 of the Constitution that does not prescribe a specific timeframe for the Governor to act on bills. The lack of a defined timeline undermines democratic processes by empowering unelected constitutional authorities to obstruct or postpone the mandates of elected governments. Once a bill is reserved for the President, there is no clear timeline for the President to act either. This could lead to further delays after the Governor reserves the bill.
Secondly, the Constitution does not mention complete timeline procedures about how a Governor should proceed if the State Legislature repasses a bill after its returned. This led to the Constitution invalidity held by the court. This gap caused conflict between the State Government and the Governor and was exploited to override legislative intent.
Thirdly, Article 163(2) shields the Governor’s discretion from judicial scrutiny in certain cases. This provision has been extensively construed to favour gubernatorial autonomy, permitting postponements or determinations devoid of efficacious legal recourse. The Supreme Court narrowed this in the case, but legislative clarity is lacking.
INFERENCE
The judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu vs. Governor of Tamil Nadu represents a pivotal reaffirmation of constitutional tenets, particularly concerning the boundaries of gubernatorial discretion. The Court deduced that the Governor, as a constitutional authority, is bound to act by the counsel of the elected State government, save for explicitly delineated situations. The Governor’s protracted inaction in granting assent to legislation promulgated by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly was adjudged a contravention of constitutional responsibilities, undermining the democratic mandate of the citizenry and the principle of accountable governance. Through a purposive interpretation of Article 200, the Court elucidated that upon a bill being returned and subsequently re-passed by the legislature, the Governor is constitutionally mandated to provide assent, negating any further discretionary authority. The ruling also accentuated that constitutional officials must operate within a reasonable timeframe to prevent legislative impasse, positing that such inaction may be subject to judicial scrutiny. By exercising its extraordinary powers under Article 142, the Court reaffirmed its role as the custodian of the Constitution and arbiter of federal equilibrium, thereby reinforcing the primacy of the democratic process over procedural or political impediments. The conclusion is unequivocal: constitutional offices must operate with accountability, transparency, and adherence to democratic principles.
REFERENCES
1) CASEMINE [www.casemine.com] February 10, 2025
2) Kanoon [www.kanoon.org] April 8, 2025
3) The Quint [ www.thequint.com] April 9, 2025
4) India Today[www.indiatoday.in] April 8, 2025
5) Live Law [www.livelaw.in] April 19, 2025
6) Supreme Court Observer [www.scobserver.in] April 23, 2025
7) Times Of India[www.timesofindia.com] November 20, 2023
8) IAS Express [www.iasexpress.net] April 9, 2025
9) Civils Daily [www.civilsdaily.com] April 14, 2025
[BY: AGNIMITRA MONDAL
-CALCUTTA UNIVERSITY]