Context:
The Supreme Court of India criticized Tamil Nadu (TN) Governor R.N. Ravi for delaying assent to several important bills passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly. The Court declared that the Governor’s action of reserving 10 bills for the President was unconstitutional. These bills had already been passed a second time by the State Assembly after the Governor had initially returned them. The Supreme Court's intervention led to the direct grant of assent to these bills under article 142 of the Indian constitution.
Key Points of the Supreme Court’s Judgment:
Unconstitutional Reservation of Bills:
o The Governor's act of reserving the 10 bills for the President after the State Assembly had passed them again was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
o Under Article 200 of the Constitution, a Governor can reserve a bill for the President only at the first instance of presentation. If the bill is returned to the Assembly and passed again, the Governor must either grant assent or withhold it; re-sending it to the President is not allowed unless there are substantial changes to the bill.
Violation of Article 200:
o The Governor’s decision to reserve the bills after the Assembly reconsidered them violated the first proviso of Article 200. This article outlines the Governor's duties and powers in relation to bills passed by the State Legislature.
Presidential Action Invalid:
o Since the referral of the bills to the President by the Governor was unconstitutional, the Court also ruled that any decision taken by the President based on that referral was invalid.
Use of Article 142 to Grant Assent:
o The Court invoked Article 142, which allows the Supreme Court to pass any order it deems necessary for "complete justice." Given the undue delay by the Governor, the Court directly granted assent to the 10 bills to end the constitutional deadlock, ensuring the proper functioning of the state government and legislature.
Governor’s Role in Parliamentary Democracy:
o The Court emphasized that the Governor should act as a facilitator of parliamentary democracy, not as an obstructionist. The Governor is expected to uphold the constitutional conventions and show due deference to the will of the elected legislature.
Implications for Future Governance:
Time-bound Action Framework for Governors:
o To avoid future delays, the Court suggested that a clear, time-bound framework should be established for Governors to act on bills.
The Court introduced time limits for Governors to act on Bills:
● One month: If a Governor withholds assent on the advice of the State Cabinet.
● Three months: If the Governor withholds assent against the Cabinet’s advice and returns the Bill with a message.
● Three months: If the Governor reserves a Bill for the President’s consideration contrary to the State Cabinet’s advice.
● One month: If a Bill is re-passed by the State Legislature, the Governor must grant assent within this period.
Institutional Clarity and Accountability:
o The Court recommended that the powers and role of Governors be revisited to ensure there is clarity and to prevent misuse of discretion. This could involve creating clear communication protocols between the Governor’s office and the state government.
Strengthening Democratic Governance:
o By taking this action, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the importance of smooth functioning in state governance and the role of Governors in promoting democratic values. Governors must adhere to constitutional principles and should not act in ways that undermine the legislature's will.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court’s judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to constitutional processes and conventions. It also emphasizes the necessity of ensuring that Governors act in a manner that respects the legislative process and promotes democratic governance. By directly granting assent to the 10 bills, the Court resolved the impasse and restored balance in the relationship between the executive and legislative branches of government in Tamil Nadu.
