SC Examines Governor’s Powers: Tamil Nadu Case to Set Precedent on Assent Delays
(Source – Indian Express, Section – Explained – Page No. – 14)
| Topic: GS2 – Polity |
| Context |
| ● The Supreme Court is currently hearing a case regarding the Governor’s powers in the legislative process, focusing on Article 200 of the Constitution. |
Analysis of the news:
Governor’s Role in the Legislative Process
- Tamil Nadu argues that delays in granting assent to Bills could undermine democracy.
- The case holds national significance as similar petitions have been filed by other opposition-ruled states like Kerala, Telangana, and Punjab.
Understanding Article 200
Article 200 provides three options for a Governor when presented with a Bill:
- Give assent, making it law.
- Withhold assent and return it for reconsideration. If re-passed, the Governor must grant assent unless it derogates the High Court’s powers.
- Reserve the Bill for the President’s consideration in specific cases.
The Tamil Nadu Dispute
- Since Governor RN Ravi’s appointment in 2021, the Tamil Nadu government (DMK) has raised concerns over repeated delays in granting assent to Bills.
- In November 2023, the SC criticized Governors for withholding Bills indefinitely, stating that they “are not elected representatives” and should act before forcing states to approach the court.
- The Tamil Nadu Assembly re-passed the Bills, but Governor Ravi withheld assent again and referred two to the President.
Key Legal Issues Before the SC
- Can a Governor withhold assent twice after a Bill is re-passed?
- What are the limits on referring Bills to the President?
- Does the Governor’s indefinite withholding (pocket veto) have constitutional validity?
- Should there be a specific time frame for assent under Article 200?
SC on Time Frame for Assent
- Article 200 states that the Governor must act “as soon as possible”, but lacks a fixed deadline.
- The SC has ruled that Governors cannot indefinitely withhold assent, as seen in the Nabam Rebia (2016) case and reiterated in November 2023 during Punjab’s petition against similar delays.
- The Court emphasized that delays should not hinder the legislative process.
Conclusion
- The Supreme Court’s ruling on Tamil Nadu’s case will set a precedent for all states, clarifying the constitutional limits of a Governor’s role in lawmaking.
- A verdict enforcing a time-bound framework could prevent Governors from obstructing the legislative process and uphold the federal structure of democracy.
| Supreme Court Observations/Interpretations |
| ● Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974): Governor is bound to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers except in certain specified cases.
● Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker (2016): Governor cannot act in a partisan manner or override the elected government’s decisions without valid reasons. ● Rameshwar Prasad Case (2006): Governor’s discretion should not be arbitrary and must align with constitutional principles. |
| Practice Question: The prolonged delay by Governors in granting assent to state Bills raises concerns about the federal structure and democratic governance in India. Examine the constitutional provisions related to the Governor’s role in the legislative process. Discuss the implications of indefinite delays in assent and suggest reforms to ensure timely decision-making. (250 Words /15 marks) |
For more such UPSC related Current Affairs, Check Out – India Recalibrates Climate Strategy
