A Historic Judgment
THE Supreme Court has delivered a truly historic verdict, which protects the federal principle and declares any action taken by a Governor to thwart the will of the state legislature as unconstitutional. The 414-page judgment delivered by a two-member Bench of the Supreme Court, consisting of Justice J B Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan, has boldly called to account the misuse of the Constitutional post by Governor R N Ravi of Tamilnadu, who withheld assent for Bills passed by the state legislature.
This judgment falls in the category of the landmark judgment given in the S R Bommai case of 1994, in which a nine-member Bench of the Supreme Court curbed the arbitrary use of Article 356 to dismiss state governments in which also the Governors’ report became the pretext for the misuse of this draconian clause. Since then, it has become difficult for the central government to use Article 356 to dismiss state governments and impose Presidential rule.
In the current case, the Tamilnadu state government had filed a writ petition against the Governor’s act of withholding assent to Bills passed by the state assembly indefinitely and refusing to act as per the provisions of Article 200 of the Constitution. As per the provisions of this Article, the Governor has three options: to give assent to the Bill passed by the assembly or to return the Bill to the state assembly with queries and comments or refer the Bill to the President if it is felt that it violated Constitutional principles.
In the case of ten Bills passed by Tamilnadu state assembly and which were not given assent by the Governor, all these Bills were re-adopted by the state assembly and sent to the Governor. As per the Constitutional provision, the Governor then has no other option but to give assent to these Bills. Instead of doing so, the Governor referred all these Bills to the President. The Court ruled that the Governor’s action was “not bonafide” and his action was erroneous in law. The Court went further to declare that these ten Bills are deemed to have been assented to. The Court proceeded to set out timelines for decision-making by the Governor pertaining to the various clauses of Article 200. The Court set three months as the time limit for the Governor to give assent to a Bill or to return it to the state legislature. In case the state legislature re-adopted the Bill and sent it back to the Governor, then, within one month’s time, the Governor has to give assent. By these directions, the grey area as to the time to be taken for the Governor to act has been clarified.
As for the reference to the President, the Court also has come out with a bold and timely direction. One of the devices used by the central government through Governors is to get Bills referred to the President and then keep it in limbo without the President giving any decision. The Court has set a three month deadline for the President to decide whether or not to give assent to the state Bill referred to her by the Governor. The judgment has also suggested that the President should consult the Supreme Court on Bills referred to her by the Governor for consideration on grounds of perceived unconstitutionality. This would aid the President to take a decision based on judicial advice.
What the judgment has upheld is about the role of the Governor, as was originally meant in the Constitutional scheme of things. The Governor is only a Constitutional figurehead. He or she cannot act against the wishes of the state assembly, which passes legislations. The Governor cannot act at the behest of the centre and utilise the Constitutional mechanisms to fulfill the political aims of the central government.
The judgment is not only a victory for Tamilnadu but for all other states where Governors have been withholding assent or obstructing the adoption of Bills passed by the state legislatures like in Kerala, Karnataka, Punjab, Telangana and West Bengal.
There are writ petitions filed by the Kerala government against similar actions taken by the former Kerala Governor, Arif Mohammed Khan. Immediately after the April 8 judgment on the Tamilnadu petition, the counsel for Kerala government requested that Kerala’s petition be heard by the same Bench. However, this was not accepted by the Chief Justice and the date for the hearing has been set for May 13. It would have been better, if the same Bench had heard the Kerala petition as they pertain to similar actions by the Kerala Governor.
The central government should heed and abide by this historic judgment and refrain from instructing Governors to act unconstitutionally. Already the recently-appointed Kerala Governor has termed the Supreme Court verdict as “judicial overreach”. There are also voices being heard that the matter should be heard by a Constitution Bench. All such efforts to circumvent the judgment should be resisted. This milestone verdict is a step forward in the struggle against centralisation drive which rides roughshod over state powers. All efforts should be made to protect the federal principle in the Constitution.
(April 16, 2025)
or reload the browser
