|

Supreme Court Curtails Governor’s Discretion: Mandates Timely Assent to State Bills

By99notes
Get Your PDF Download Pdf

(Source – Indian Express, Section – Explained, Page – 15)

Topic: GS2 – Polity

Context

  • The Supreme Court invalidated Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi’s decision to withhold assent to 10 state Bills, declaring it illegal and contrary to constitutional principles.

  • The verdict has major implications for Centre-state relations, especially in opposition-ruled states.

Analysis of the news:

Constitutional Provisions in Question

  • Article 200 grants the Governor four options: assent, withhold assent, return (non-money) Bills, or reserve them for the President.
  • Proviso to Article 200 mandates that once a Bill is reconsidered and passed again, the Governor “shall not withhold assent”.
  • Article 163 implies the Governor must act on the advice of the Council of Ministers in most matters.

Problem of Indefinite Delays

  • Governors have been exploiting the lack of a defined timeline to indefinitely delay assent, effectively using a “pocket veto.”

  • This delays governance and undermines the authority of elected legislatures.

Supreme Court’s Earlier Stand

  • In the 2016 Nabam Rebia case, the SC ruled that Governors must return Bills with recommendations if they withhold assent — they cannot delay indefinitely.

  • In 2023 (Punjab case), the SC emphasized that Governors cannot use their discretionary powers to obstruct lawmaking and must follow constitutional procedures.

Key Takeaways from 2024 Tamil Nadu Verdict

  • Time Limits Imposed:

    • One month for assent after a Bill is returned and passed again.
    • Three months maximum to reserve a Bill for the President.
  • Governor Bound by Council of Ministers: The court reiterated that Governors cannot act arbitrarily and must follow constitutional conventions.
  • Use of Article 142: The court exercised special powers to deem the 10 pending Bills as having received assent to ensure “complete justice.”

Implications for Other States

  • The judgment sets a precedent for similar disputes pending in Kerala and Telangana, where Governors have delayed assent for extended periods.

  • The ruling strengthens state governments’ position and reinforces legislative supremacy.

Significance

  • This verdict asserts the primacy of elected legislatures in lawmaking, curbs arbitrary gubernatorial discretion, and reinforces constitutional accountability in India’s federal framework.

What Measures can be Adopted to Address Governor-State Disputes?

  • Impeachment Process for Governors: Currently, Governors can only be removed by the President, leading to a lack of state-level accountability.
    • The Punchhi Commission proposed an impeachment process at the state level to enhance accountability.
    • The Supreme Court’s ruling in BP Singhal vs Union of India (2010) emphasized that any removal must be for a valid reason, ensuring fairness.
  • Amendment to Article 163: It grants Governors discretionary powers, which can lead to political bias.
    • An amendment to Article 163 could limit these powers, clarifying they should only be used in exceptional circumstances impacting national interest or constitutional integrity.
  • Review of Gubernatorial Conduct: A periodic review mechanism by Judicial Commissions could be set up to periodically assess how Governors exercise their powers.
    • This would ensure that their actions align with constitutional norms, limit interference with state governance, and increase transparency.
  • Clear Guidelines on Imposing President’s Rule: To prevent misuse, the Governor’s discretion in recommending President’s Rule must be exercised judiciously, backed by objective material, and remain open to judicial scrutiny, as upheld in the S.R. Bommai case (1994).
    • The Sarkaria Commission further advised that it should be a last-resort mechanism, invoked only after all constitutional remedies are exhausted.

PYQ: 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. (2022)

Practice Question: Discuss the constitutional provisions relating to the Governor’s assent to state legislation under Article 200. In light of recent Supreme Court judgments, critically examine the implications of delayed assent on the functioning of state legislatures. (250 Words /15 marks)

Avatar Of 99Notes

Similar Posts