Supreme Court Reviews Governor's Assent Powers in Tamil Nadu Case
- ByAdmin --
- 09 May 2025 --
- 0 Comments
The Supreme Court of India has taken up a significant constitutional issue regarding the extent and manner of the Governor’s powers to grant assent to bills passed by the state legislature. The case, emerging from Tamil Nadu, challenges the perceived misuse and delay by Governors in giving assent, raising critical questions about the federal structure, constitutional morality, and the sanctity of legislative processes under the Indian Constitution.
This case holds far-reaching implications not only for Tamil Nadu but for Centre-State relations across India, especially at a time when tensions between elected state governments and Governors appointed by the Centre have intensified.
Background of the Case
The Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly had passed multiple important bills concerning education, administration, and social welfare. However, several of these bills remained pending without gubernatorial assent for extended periods. In some cases, the Governor returned the bills or sought clarifications, but no action was taken for months, leading to legislative paralysis.
The Tamil Nadu government approached the Supreme Court under Article 32, alleging that such indefinite delay or inaction by the Governor violates the democratic mandate and hinders the functioning of an elected government.
The Supreme Court has now begun examining the constitutional framework governing the Governor's role and duties in relation to state legislation.
Key Constitutional Provisions Involved
- Article 200:
When a Bill is presented to the Governor after being passed by the Legislature, the Governor can:- Assent to the Bill
- Withhold assent
- Return the Bill (if not a Money Bill) for reconsideration
- Reserve the Bill for the President’s consideration
- Article 163:
The Governor is to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, except where the Constitution requires him to act in his discretion.
- Article 14:
The guarantee of equality before the law — arbitrary delays or withholding of assent can amount to discrimination and violation of constitutional principles.
Supreme Court’s Preliminary Observations
While hearing the matter, the Supreme Court Bench comprising Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra made important remarks:
- Governor is not an adjudicator:
The Court stressed that the Governor is not meant to sit in judgment over the wisdom or merit of legislation passed by an elected legislature.
- Delay Violates Constitutional Duty:
An inordinate delay by the Governor in dealing with Bills violates the spirit of responsible government, which is fundamental to a parliamentary democracy.
- Need for Time-bound Decision:
The Court hinted that there must be a reasonable timeframe within which Governors must act upon bills presented to them.
- Judicially Enforceable Duty:
The Governor’s duty to consider a Bill and act upon it is not a matter of unfettered discretion but is subject to constitutional limits, and courts can intervene in cases of mala fide inaction.
Major Legal Issues Being Considered
- Whether a Governor can indefinitely delay action on a Bill.
- Whether the Governor’s discretion is limited only to situations expressly mentioned in the Constitution.
- Whether courts can prescribe a time frame for decision-making on bills.
The Tamil Nadu case is crucial in the evolving jurisprudence on the separation of powers and constitutional conventions in India’s federal setup.
Important Precedents and References
- Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974) 2 SCC 831:
The Supreme Court held that the Governor must ordinarily act on the advice of the Council of Ministers.
- Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006) 2 SCC 1:
Reinforced that constitutional authorities, including Governors, cannot act arbitrarily.
- Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker (2016) 8 SCC 1:
The Court ruled that discretionary powers of the Governor must be narrowly construed and exercised in limited, constitutionally-defined situations.
- Constitution of India:
- Article 163 (Aid and Advice of Council of Ministers)
- Article 200 (Assent to Bills)
- Article 201 (Bills reserved for the President)
Possible Outcomes and Implications
- Setting a Reasonable Time Limit:
The Court may lay down guidelines or recommend a specific time frame (such as three months) within which Governors must act on bills.
- Strengthening Federalism:
The ruling could reinforce the principles of cooperative federalism by limiting the scope for political misuse of gubernatorial offices.
- Clarification of Governor’s Role:
The judgment could define the limits of the Governor’s discretion in a clearer manner, preventing future misuse.
- Judicial Review of Inaction:
The case may establish that prolonged inaction by a Governor can be challenged and corrected through judicial review.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s review of the Governor’s assent powers in the Tamil Nadu case is a critical step towards reinforcing democratic governance and maintaining the balance of power between the Centre and the States. In a parliamentary democracy, the will of the elected legislature must prevail unless it falls foul of constitutional provisions. Delays and obstructions by constitutional authorities undermine the fabric of democracy. The judgment expected from the apex court will likely be a milestone in safeguarding legislative autonomy and the principle of accountable governance under the Constitution of India.
RELATED Blog
0 comments