Editorial 1: A Governor’s conduct and a judgment of significance

Context

The Supreme Court has reinforced a basic constitutional fact — that the Governor of a State must follow legal rules and democratic principles.

Introduction

Last week, in an important ruling in The State of Tamil Nadu vs The Governor of Tamil Nadu and Anr., a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court, including Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan, confirmed the limits on the Governor's power. The Court reminded us of a simple constitutional fact: the Governor of a State is not a part of the Union nor an independent authority, but is bound by legal rules and democratic principles.

A need to respect democratic obligations

• Main Question of the Case: The core issue was what happens when a Governor fails to act on a Bill passed by the State Legislature.
• Court's Response: The Court’s decision:
  • • Validated the Bills passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly.
    • Delivered a broader message: the Governor's office is important but must follow the principles of representative democracy.
    • Withholding assent to Bills indefinitely without reason goes against federalism and harms the constitutional order.
• Background of the Bills: 12 Bills were initially in dispute, some dating back to 2020.
  • The Bills were linked to the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) administration.
  • Some Bills aimed to take away the Governor's power to appoint Vice-Chancellors to public universities, which was a result of long-standing conflicts between the Raj Bhavan and the elected government.
• Governor’s Inaction: For years, the Governor did not take any action on the Bills.
  • In November 2023, the State government approached the Supreme Court.
  • The Governor then referred two Bills to the President.
  • A special session of the Legislative Assembly was called to reenact the remaining 10 Bills.
  • When sent again, the Governor passed them to the President.
    • The President assented to one Bill, rejected seven, and left two pending.
• State Government's Argument: The State government argued that the Governor's delay and inaction:
  • • Stopped the legislative process.
    • Undermined the will of the people.
      • The Governor’s actions were seen as needing judicial review.
• Federalism and Constitutional Framework: India’s federal structure balances legislative powers between the Union and the States.
  • Article 245: Defines the territorial jurisdiction of legislative powers.
  • Constitution’s Seventh Schedule divides powers into three lists:

• Role of the Governor: The Governor, although appointed by the President, acts as the constitutional head of the State.
  • The Governor is obligated to follow the aid and advice of the State’s Council of Ministers, except in cases where the Constitution grants discretion.

A reading of Article 200

• Governor's Discretion: The Governor was left with no discretion in the matter after the Court’s ruling.
• Context of the Case: Article 200 of the Constitution, which guides the Governor’s action on a Bill, became central to the Court’s decision.
  • The case focused on the interpretation of this Article.
• Options for the Governor under Article 200: The Governor has three options:

• Union’s Argument: The Union of India argued that Article 200 gave the Governor a fourth option:
  • • The Governor could withhold assent without referring the Bill back to the Assembly.
    • This was seen as an absolute veto over the Bill.
• Court’s Rejection of Union’s Argument: The Court rejected the Union’s argument, referring to a previous case, State of Punjab vs Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab (2023), which stated:
  • • The Governor has no independent power under Article 200’s first proviso.
    • The Governor can only choose from the three available options: grant assent, refer to the President, or withhold assent and return to the Assembly.
• Union’s Further Claim: The Union also argued that the Governor could exercise discretion in deciding whether to reserve a Bill for the President.
  • The Court referenced the Constituent Assembly debates, noting that the phrase "in his discretion" was deliberately removed from the final version of Article 200.
  • This removal emphasized that the Governor's role is constrained by the advice of the elected executive.
• Limited Discretion for the Governor: The Court identified three narrow circumstances where the Governor could act without the Council of Ministers’ advice:
  1. 1. If a Bill affects the powers of a High Court (second proviso of Article 200).
     2. If a Bill explicitly requires presidential assent (e.g., under Article 31C).
     3. If a Bill undermines constitutional values, requiring presidential attention.
• Judicial Review of Governor’s Actions: Even when exercising discretion, the Governor’s actions are subject to judicial review.
  • Article 361 grants personal immunity to Governors, but this does not shield their actions from legal scrutiny.
  • The Governor cannot obstruct the legislative process by withholding assent indefinitely.
• Court’s Decision on the Governor’s Actions: The Court found that the Governor had no discretion in this case:
  • • After withholding assent, the Governor could not refer the Bills to the President.
    • There was no executive advice backing his actions, and no valid constitutional rationale.
• Court’s Remedy: Although the Court could have issued a writ of mandamus to force the Governor to grant assent to the Bills, it chose a different approach.
  • The Court used Article 142 to declare that the 10 Bills would be deemed assented to on the date they were re-presented to the Governor.
• Conclusion: Some may see this as judicial overreach, but it was a logical step as issuing a mandamus might have been impractical.
  • Once the Bills were passed again by the State Assembly and recommended by the Council of Ministers, the Governor had no discretion in the matter.

Conclusion

The importance of the judgment for the specific Bills at stake is clear. However, the verdict also delivers a broader message. It upholds a fundamental principle of our Republic: that the Governor, although appointed by the Union government, operates on the aid and advice of the State executive; the role is meant to function not as a source of political disputes, but as a constitutional sentinel, safeguarding the values of representative democracy.