 |
|
The Supreme Court's ruling against the Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi marks a significant moment in the ongoing discourse surrounding the powers and limitations of Governors in India. This verdict, delivered on April 8th, directly addresses the escalating tensions between elected state governments and the Governors appointed by the central government, particularly in states where the ruling party differs from the central government. The Court's decision clarifies several critical aspects of the Governor's role, emphasizing their responsibility to act within the framework of the Constitution and in accordance with the advice of the elected state government. At the heart of the matter was a petition filed by the MK Stalin-led Tamil Nadu government, alleging that Governor Ravi had overstepped his constitutional boundaries through various actions, including delaying assent to bills, withholding sanctions for prosecution, and failing to act on files related to prisoner releases and key appointments. These actions, the state government argued, had created a deadlock, hindering the smooth functioning of the state's legislative and administrative processes. The Supreme Court, in its judgement delivered by Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, meticulously examined these allegations, ultimately concluding that Governor Ravi's actions had indeed violated constitutional values. The Court's pronouncements serve as a crucial reminder of the delicate balance of power between the Centre and the states in India's federal structure, and the importance of upholding constitutional principles in the exercise of gubernatorial authority.
One of the key takeaways from the Supreme Court's judgement is its reaffirmation of the Governor's role as a constitutional head. The Court explicitly stated that the framers of the Constitution envisioned the Governor as a 'constitutional head, a sagacious counsellor and advisor to the Ministry', someone who can ‘pour oil over troubled waters’. This highlights the intention behind the office, which is to provide guidance and facilitate smooth governance, rather than to obstruct or impede the functioning of the elected government. The Court's observation that 'What has unfolded before us has been quite the opposite' underscores the gravity of the situation in Tamil Nadu, where the Governor's actions had created a contentious environment. Furthermore, the Court addressed the specific issue of withholding assent to bills without providing adequate explanation. In November 2023, Governor Ravi returned 10 bills with a simple statement: 'I withhold assent.' The Supreme Court ruled that this action was not in compliance with Article 200 of the Constitution, which requires the Governor to send a message to the legislature for reconsideration, outlining the reasons for withholding assent. This ruling emphasizes the importance of transparency and accountability in the Governor's actions, ensuring that the state legislature is informed of the specific concerns that led to the withholding of assent.
The Court further elaborated on the limitations of the Governor's powers regarding bills that have been repassed by the state Assembly. After the Tamil Nadu Assembly repassed the same 10 bills in a special session, Governor Ravi reserved them for the President, citing repugnancy with central laws. The Supreme Court unequivocally stated that this action was constitutionally impermissible. According to the Court, Article 200 does not grant the Governor the authority to reserve a bill for Presidential consideration after it has been reconsidered and repassed by the state legislature. In such a scenario, the only constitutionally permissible option for the Governor is to grant assent. This clarification is crucial, as it prevents the Governor from circumventing the will of the elected legislature by indefinitely delaying the passage of bills through repeated referrals to the President. In addition to addressing the specific instances of withholding assent and reserving bills, the Supreme Court also criticized the Governor for prolonged delays in acting on bills. The Court emphasized that a Governor cannot simply 'sit on a Bill' indefinitely, as such delays are unconstitutional. The judgement made it clear that once a bill is passed by the state Assembly and sent to the Governor, he or she must make a decision within a reasonable timeframe. To provide clarity and guidance on this matter, the Court laid down specific timelines for Governors' actions under Article 200.
The Court outlined that if the Governor chooses to withhold assent or reserve a bill for the President, this action must be taken within one month. Furthermore, if the Governor acts contrary to the advice of the state government by withholding assent or reserving a bill, a final decision must be reached within a maximum of three months. These timelines are designed to ensure that the Governor's actions are not unduly delayed, thereby preventing the obstruction of the legislative process. The Supreme Court's ruling also extended to the President's role in considering bills reserved by Governors. The Court noted that seven of the ten bills reserved by Governor Ravi were rejected by the President without any public explanation. The Court flagged this as problematic, stating that 'Withholding of assent by the President under Article 201 was by way of a non-speaking order and thus does not comply with the first provision.' The Court emphasized that, like the Governor, the President is also bound by constitutional principles of transparency and accountability. Therefore, the President must provide reasoned justifications for withholding assent to bills reserved by Governors, ensuring that the decision-making process is open and transparent. To maintain consistency and prevent undue delays, the Court suggested that the President should also decide on bills reserved by Governors within three months.
Moreover, the Court's judgement reinforced the fundamental principle that the Governor is not an independent authority but must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. This principle, which has been established through numerous previous rulings, is central to the functioning of India's parliamentary democracy. The Governor, as the constitutional head of the state, is expected to exercise their powers in accordance with the advice of the elected government, ensuring that the state's administration is carried out in accordance with the wishes of the people. The Supreme Court's ruling against the Tamil Nadu Governor serves as a crucial reminder of the importance of upholding constitutional principles and maintaining the delicate balance of power between the Centre and the states. The judgement provides clarity on the limitations of the Governor's powers and emphasizes the need for transparency, accountability, and adherence to the advice of the elected government. This decision is likely to have far-reaching implications for the relationship between Governors and state governments across India, particularly in states where there are political differences between the ruling party and the central government. By reaffirming the constitutional role of the Governor and setting clear timelines for decision-making, the Supreme Court has taken a significant step towards ensuring the smooth functioning of India's federal system and protecting the principles of democracy and constitutional governance. The verdict not only addresses the immediate situation in Tamil Nadu but also provides valuable guidance for future interactions between Governors and state governments, promoting a more harmonious and cooperative relationship.
Source: Explained: 6 highlights from SC verdict against Tamil Nadu Governor