From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Mains level: Issues related to the Governor;
Why in the News?
The Supreme Court criticised Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi, calling his actions “unconstitutional.” The court said he did nothing for months about 10 important Bills, and then suddenly sent them to the President only after the State Assembly passed them again and the matter reached the court.
What did the SC rule on the TN Governor’s reservation of Bills for the President in Nov 2024?
- Action declared illegal: The Court ruled that the Governor’s act of reserving 10 Bills for the President after they were already reconsidered and passed again by the Tamil Nadu Assembly was unconstitutional. Eg: If a state legislature passes a Bill, and the Governor returns it, but the legislature passes it again, the Governor must either give assent or withhold it—he cannot send it to the President at that stage.
- Violation of Article 200: According to Article 200, a Bill can be reserved for the President only when it is first presented to the Governor—not after it is passed again following reconsideration. Eg: The Governor had no authority to reserve the 10 Bills in November 2024 because they had already been returned, reconsidered, and passed again.
- Presidential action also invalid: The Court held that since the Governor’s action was unconstitutional, any decision taken by the President based on that action is also invalid. Eg: Even if the President had accepted or rejected those Bills, it would not be valid because the referral itself was flawed.
Why did the SC invoke Article 142 to grant assent to the 10 Bills?
- Undue delay by the Governor: The Bills were kept pending for an excessively long time without any decision by the Governor, causing a constitutional deadlock. Eg: Some Bills were pending since January 2020, which hindered the functioning of the state legislature and governance.
- Violation of constitutional spirit and conventions: The Governor showed disregard for established constitutional conventions and the Supreme Court’s earlier rulings by not acting in a timely or respectful manner. Eg: The Court said the Governor displayed “scant respect” for constitutional procedures by withholding assent without valid reason.
- To ensure justice and restore balance: The Court used Article 142 (which allows it to do complete justice in any matter) to directly grant assent to the 10 Bills to break the impasse and uphold democratic functioning. Eg: Since the Governor failed in his duty, the Court stepped in to protect the will of the people as expressed through their elected legislature.
Note: Article 142 of the Indian Constitution grants the Supreme Court the power to pass any decree or order necessary to do “complete justice” in any case or matter pending before it, allowing it to transcend the limitations of existing laws and statutes. |
When can a Governor constitutionally reserve a Bill for the President’s consideration?
- Only at the first instance of presentation (Article 200): Under Article 200 of the Constitution, the Governor may reserve a Bill for the President only when it is presented to him for the first time. Eg: If a state Assembly passes a Bill and the Governor receives it for the first time, he can reserve it for the President instead of giving or withholding assent.
- Not after Assembly reconsideration (Article 200 – First Proviso): If the Governor returns a Bill to the Assembly and it is re-passed (with or without changes), the Governor must act—either grant or withhold assent—and cannot reserve it again unless it is substantially changed. Eg: In the Tamil Nadu case, the Governor reserved the Bills after they were reconsidered by the Assembly, which the Supreme Court ruled was unconstitutional.
- Exception – If the Bill is materially different (Article 200 – Judicial Interpretation): If the Bill, after being reconsidered by the legislature, is substantially or materially different from the original, reservation may be allowed. Eg: If new provisions are added that affect national interest or conflict with Union laws, reservation might be justified, even after reconsideration.
How did the SC define the Governor’s expected role and conduct under the Constitution?
- Respect for Parliamentary Democracy and the Will of the Legislature: The Governor must act in accordance with the democratic spirit and not undermine the decisions of the elected legislature. Eg: Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974) — The SC ruled that the Governor is a constitutional head and must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, except in specific situations.
- Facilitator, Not an Obstructionist: The Governor should enable smooth functioning of governance and not stall legislative processes. Eg: Samsher Singh case (1974) and reaffirmed in the 2024 SC ruling on Tamil Nadu Bills — The Court held that the Governor’s prolonged inaction amounted to a constitutional failure and disruption of state functioning.
- Bound by Constitutional Oath and Values:The Governor is duty-bound to uphold the Constitution and work for the welfare of the people. Eg: Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker (2016) — The SC observed that the Governor must act within the “four corners” of the Constitution and not misuse discretionary powers.
Way forward:
- Time-bound Action Framework for Governors: A clear timeline should be laid down—either by Parliament or through judicial interpretation—for the Governor to act on Bills (assent, withhold, or reserve). Eg: A fixed period (like 4–6 weeks) can ensure that legislative processes are not indefinitely delayed, maintaining the balance between constitutional roles and democratic governance.
- Institutional Clarity and Accountability: The role and powers of the Governor should be revisited to reduce ambiguity and misuse of discretion. Regular communication protocols between the Governor’s office and the elected government can also be institutionalized. Eg: Like in the case of money Bills where the Governor has limited scope, similar clarity must be applied to regular Bills to avoid conflict or misuse.
Mains PYQ:
[UPSC 2018] Whether the Supreme Court Judgement (July 2018) can settle the political tussle between the Lt. Governor and elected government of Delhi? Examine.
Linkage: The broader theme of the relationship between an unelected head of state (or administrator) and an elected government in a democratic setup.
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024