In recent times, a significant constitutional issue has emerged in India involving state governors and their handling of legislative bills passed by state assemblies. The crux of the controversy lies in delays or inaction by governors in giving assent to bills particularly in the case of Tamil Nadu, where the Governor allegedly delayed action on as many as ten bills passed by the state legislature.
The Role of the Governor
Under Article 200 of the Indian Constitution, when a bill is passed by a state legislature, the governor has three options:
- Give assent to the bill,
- Withhold assent,
- Reserve the bill for the consideration of the President.
This discretionary power is subject to constitutional conventions, which suggest that the governor, as a nominal head, must generally act on the aid and advice of the council of ministers.
The Tamil Nadu Controversy
In Tamil Nadu, a major constitutional row erupted when the state government accused Governor R.N. Ravi of delaying assent to several important bills passed by the Legislative Assembly. These bills, covering key areas like university reforms and administrative changes, were central to the ruling party’s governance agenda. The government argued that the Governor’s prolonged inaction violated democratic norms and disrupted the functioning of the state legislature.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court criticized the delays, asserting that governors are not entitled to sit on bills indefinitely. The Court condemned the governors act as unconstitutional and further mentioned that governor must be a friend and guide to the state and not a hindrance. It reaffirmed that governors must act within a reasonable timeframe, as unwarranted delays disturb the federal balance and violate democratic principles. Following the court’s observations, the Tamil Nadu governor gave assent to some of the pending bills, prompting further discussion on the nature and limits of gubernatorial powers. Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K Stalin termed the verdict as historic and a huge victory for all the states.
Broader Implications
This case is not an isolated one. Several other states, including Kerala, West Bengal, and Punjab, have voiced similar concerns about governors delaying or withholding assent to bills. These confrontations have sparked debates on:
- Federalism: Whether governors, appointed by the central government, are interfering in the functioning of elected state governments.
- Accountability: Lack of clear timelines in Article 200 allows room for discretionary inaction.
- Reforms Needed: Experts argue for guidelines or constitutional amendments to ensure time-bound decision-making by governors.
Conclusion
The recent tensions between state governments and governors bring to light critical questions about the exercise of constitutional powers. While the Constitution grants the governor certain discretionary powers, these must be used within the framework of democratic principles and in accordance with the advice of the elected government. Unjustified delays or inaction on legislative bills not only disrupt governance but also threaten the federal structure envisioned by the Constitution. Moving forward, there is a pressing need for clearer guidelines or reforms to ensure that gubernatorial functions are carried out in a time-bound, transparent, and accountable manner.
Sources:
- https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/article-200-governor-cant-reserve-bill-for-presidents-assent-after-it-was-re-enacted-by-assembly-supreme-court-288851?utm_
- https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/sc-sets-timeline-for-state-governors-to-decide-on-bills-sent-to-them/articleshow/120107361.cms?utm_
- https://www.thenewsminute.com/news/sc-declares-tn-governors-reservation-of-10-bills-to-president-as-illegal-and-erroneous?utm_
More Current Affairs: https://learnproacademy.in/updates/