Why in the News?
In The State of Tamil Nadu vs. The Governor of Tamil Nadu and Another, a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India, led by Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan, reaffirmed that Governors’ powers are limited and must follow constitutional boundaries.
What constitutional issue was addressed in the Tamil Nadu vs the Governor case?
| Aspect | Details | Example |
| Limits of Gubernatorial Discretion (Article 200) | The Governor cannot withhold assent to a Bill indefinitely or act independently of the elected State Cabinet, except in constitutionally specified situations. The role is largely ceremonial. | Governor of Tamil Nadu withheld assent to 12 Bills, including those on the appointment of Vice-Chancellors to public universities. |
| Constitutional Obligations of the Governor and State Executive | The Governor is bound by the advice of the State Cabinet and cannot act on personal discretion unless explicitly permitted by the Constitution. This upholds representative democracy. | Governor delayed referrals to the President without valid reasons, thereby undermining the democratic function of the State Legislature. |
| Judicial Review of Governor’s Actions | Article 361 gives personal immunity to the Governor but does not shield official actions from judicial review. Courts can check if actions comply with the Constitution and democratic norms. | Supreme Court held that the Governor’s inaction violated the Constitution, and invoked Article 142 to deem the Bills as assented to, resolving the legislative deadlock. |
Why was the Governor’s inaction on Tamil Nadu Bills ruled unconstitutional?
- Violation of Constitutional Duty under Article 200: The Governor is constitutionally bound to either assent to a Bill, withhold assent (and return it for reconsideration), or reserve it for the President. Indefinitely sitting on Bills without any action violates this mandate. Eg: The Governor kept 10 re-enacted Bills pending without any action or justification, undermining the role of the legislature.
- Undermining the Principles of Representative Democracy: By not acting on duly passed Bills, the Governor disregarded the advice of the elected Council of Ministers, thereby disrupting the democratic process and the legislative will of the people. Eg: Despite the Tamil Nadu Assembly passing the Bills again in a special session, the Governor forwarded them to the President without consulting the State Cabinet, showing a lack of respect for democratic norms.
When can a Governor use discretion under Article 200?
- When a Bill Affects the Powers of the High Court: The second proviso to Article 200 allows the Governor to reserve a Bill that directly affects the powers of the High Court for the President’s consideration. Eg: If a State law tries to curtail the High Court’s jurisdiction or authority, the Governor can use discretion to reserve it.
- When Presidential Assent is Constitutionally Mandatory: If a Bill falls under categories where presidential assent is specifically required (such as laws under Article 31C that seek immunity from judicial review), the Governor may reserve it. Eg: A Bill claiming protection under Article 31C, linked to Directive Principles, must be reserved for the President.
- When a Bill Fundamentally Undermines Constitutional Values: The Governor can act without ministerial advice if the Bill threatens the basic structure or core values of the Constitution. Eg: A Bill that violates secularism or federalism in an extreme manner could justify the Governor’s discretionary action.
How did the Supreme Court invoke Article 142 to resolve the constitutional deadlock in the Tamil Nadu Bills case?
- Used Article 142 to Ensure Complete Justice: The Court exercised its special power under Article 142 to deliver complete justice by deeming the 10 re-enacted Bills as having received the Governor’s assent. Eg: Instead of waiting for further assent or action from the Governor, the Court directly validated the Bills to avoid further delays in governance.
- Bypassed Unworkable Remedies Like Mandamus: Issuing a writ of mandamus (to compel the Governor to act) was seen as ineffective since the Governor is protected from personal liability under Article 361. Eg: Since the Governor cannot be punished for contempt, the Court chose Article 142 as a more enforceable solution.
- Restored the Legislative Authority of the State: By invoking Article 142, the Court reinforced the principle that the Governor cannot override the will of an elected legislature through inaction Eg: This prevented indefinite delays in implementing laws passed by the Tamil Nadu Assembly, thus preserving democratic functioning.
Why was issuing a writ of mandamus deemed inadequate?
- Governor is Immune Under Article 361: The Constitution grants the Governor personal immunity from legal proceedings while in office, making it difficult to enforce any court directive. Eg: Even if the Court issued a mandamus to compel assent or action, the Governor could not be held legally accountable for ignoring it.
- Mandamus Cannot Be Enforced Practically: Courts cannot force a Governor to exercise discretion in a particular way, only to consider doing so—making the remedy ineffective when deliberate inaction is involved. Eg: If the Governor simply delays action without giving reasons, courts have limited tools to compel a timely decision.
- Could Cause a Constitutional Standoff: Forcing the Governor through judicial direction risks undermining the separation of powers and could lead to a deadlock between constitutional authorities. Eg: If the Governor resists the court order, it could trigger a conflict between the judiciary and the executive, weakening the constitutional balance.
Way forward:
- Codify Time Limit for Assent: Amend the Constitution or enact a statutory framework to prescribe a reasonable time limit (eg: 30 days) within which the Governor must act on Bills to prevent indefinite delays.
- Enhance Legislative Oversight: Establish a mechanism for State Legislatures to seek judicial clarification or initiate review when the Governor delays action, reinforcing accountability and upholding democratic norms.
Mains PYQ:
[UPSC 2022] Discuss the essential conditions for exercise of the legislative powers by the Governor. Discuss the legality of re-promulgation of ordinances by the Governor without placing them before the Legislature.
Linkage: This question directly addresses the legislative powers of the Governor, a key aspect of their conduct. The second part specifically asks about the legality of re-promulgation of ordinances, which can be a contentious issue and often involves judicial scrutiny. This relates to the constitutional limits on the Governor’s powers, similar to the issues raised in the article.
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
