Why in the News?

On April 8, 2025, the Supreme Court settled a long-standing issue between the Governor of Tamil Nadu and the state’s government and Legislative Assembly.

What was the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Tamil Nadu Governor’s delay in assenting to Bills?

No “Pocket Veto” by Governor: The Court ruled the Governor cannot indefinitely withhold assent to Bills passed by the State Legislature. Eg: The Governor delayed action on ten Bills for years without justification.
Governor Must Act Timely: The Governor must either assent, return, or refer the Bills to the President within reasonable time. Eg: The Court stated the Governor should act on the Bills, not delay them.
Article 142 Used to Declare Bills Law: Due to the delay, the Court invoked Article 142 to deem the Bills as law. Eg: The Tamil Nadu government notified the Acts as law following the Court’s decision.

Why did the Court use Article 142 to declare the Bills as law?

Prolonged Delay by the Governor: The Court found that the Governor had unjustifiably delayed action on the Bills for years, violating the constitutional principles of federalism and representative democracy. Eg: The Governor kept the Bills pending for an extended period without offering valid reasons, causing a constitutional impasse.
Ensuring Justice and Upholding Democracy: The Court invoked Article 142 to do “complete justice” by respecting the will of the elected representatives of the State Legislative Assembly, thus protecting the democratic process. Eg: The Court deemed the Bills passed by the Legislature as law to ensure that the legislative intent of the people’s representatives was not thwarted.
Constitutional Vacuum and Remedy: Since the Constitution did not specify a time limit for the Governor’s action, the Court stepped in to remedy the situation, ensuring the Bills were not indefinitely stalled. Eg: The Tamil Nadu government immediately notified the Acts as law after the Court’s intervention, rectifying the Governor’s delay.

When is the Governor constitutionally allowed to refer a Bill to the President?

When the Bill is Inconsistent with Central Law: The Governor can refer a Bill to the President if it conflicts with existing central laws or raises constitutional issues requiring the President’s decision. Eg: A Bill that contradicts a central law on the same subject matter may be referred to the President for approval.
When the Governor Has Doubts on the Bill’s Constitutionality: If the Governor has constitutional concerns regarding a Bill, they can refer it to the President for further consideration, especially if it involves matters outside the state’s jurisdiction. Eg: A Bill that encroaches on the powers reserved for the Union can be referred to the President for a final decision.

Which constitutional flaw did the Court aim to rectify through this judgment?

Lack of Clear Guidelines for Governor’s Action: The Constitution did not specify clear timelines or procedures for the Governor in handling State Bills, leaving room for delays and misuse of power. Eg: The Governor of Tamil Nadu delayed assent to Bills for years, exploiting the absence of a specific time frame for action.
Absence of Safeguards Against Governor’s Arbitrary Power: The Constitution did not explicitly limit the Governor’s power to withhold assent or exercise a pocket veto, leading to potential abuse and undermining the democratic process. Eg: The Governor’s delay in assenting to ten Bills without any constitutional justification prompted the Court’s intervention.
Weakness in Protecting Federalism and Legislative Authority: The lack of specific checks on the Governor’s actions threatened the principles of federalism and undermined the autonomy of the State Legislative Assembly. Eg: By indefinitely stalling the Bills, the Governor weakened the power of the elected State Legislature, which led the Court to act to preserve federalism.

Who is responsible for upholding constitutional conventions to protect federalism?

The Executive (Governor and Chief Minister): Both the Governor, as the representative of the President, and the Chief Minister, as the head of the state government, must respect constitutional conventions to ensure the smooth functioning of federalism and maintain the balance of power between the Centre and States. Eg: The Governor’s undue delay in assenting to Bills disrupted the federal balance and called for judicial intervention.
The Legislature (State Legislative Assembly): The elected representatives in the State Legislature must ensure that the legislative process adheres to constitutional conventions, fostering federal cooperation and preventing undue interference by the Centre. Eg: The Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly passed Bills that reflected the will of the people, but faced obstruction due to Governor’s delays, highlighting the need for constitutional respect.
The Judiciary: The judiciary plays a crucial role in upholding constitutional conventions when other branches fail to act appropriately. The Supreme Court intervenes when there is a violation of constitutional principles like federalism and when executive or legislative actors overstep their bounds. Eg: The Supreme Court used Article 142 to declare the Tamil Nadu Bills as law, rectifying the constitutional flaw in the Governor’s inaction and protecting federalism.

Way forward:

Clarify Constitutional Procedures: There is a need for clear constitutional guidelines and timeframes for Governors to act on State Bills, reducing ambiguity and preventing delays that undermine federalism. This could involve amendments or judicial directions for timely decision-making.
Strengthen Checks on Executive Power: Strengthening safeguards against arbitrary use of powers by the Governor through legal reforms and accountability measures can ensure that the democratic process and legislative authority of states are respected.

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: The Supreme Court’s 2025 verdict addressed the limits of the Governor’s power regarding assent to bills, effectively preventing the use of a “pocket veto”. This context makes the 2022 question relevant as it explores other aspects of the Governor’s legislative role and the need for accountability to the state legislature.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now