The Hindu: Published on 21st April 2025:
Why in News?
The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a landmark judgment on April 8, 2025, in a case between the Tamil Nadu Government and its Governor. The case addressed the Governor's inaction on several Bills passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly. The verdict has significant implications for federalism, the role of Governors, and constitutional governance across India.
Background of the Case
Governor of Tamil Nadu had neither assented, returned, nor referred 10 Bills passed by the State Assembly—essentially using a 'pocket veto', which is not constitutionally recognized.
Following judicial intervention, the Governor returned the Bills, and after they were passed again by the Assembly, he referred them to the President.
Of the 10 Bills:
1 received assent
7 were denied
2 remained undecided
Key Legal Questions Raised
Can a Governor indefinitely delay assent to State Bills?
Can a Bill be both returned and referred to the President?
Is there any timeline under the Constitution for Governors/President to act on Bills?
Can the Supreme Court declare pending Bills as ‘law’?
Supreme Court’s Observations & Ruling
- Governors have no power of pocket veto.
- A Bill must either be assented to, returned once, or referred to the President—but not a mix.
- The President too cannot deny assent unless constitutional grounds exist (e.g., conflict with central law).
- Timelines introduced by the Court:
- Though the Constitution doesn’t mention timelines, the Court has now set specific durations for action (assent/return/referral).
- Using Article 142, the Court invoked its power to do “complete justice” and deemed the Bills to be law, considering unjustified delays.
Wider Significance
Not limited to Tamil Nadu — similar Governor-State clashes exist in West Bengal, Kerala, Punjab, Telangana, etc.
The ruling sets a precedent against the misuse of gubernatorial authority and protects legislative autonomy of States.
Reasserts the principle of federalism and legislative supremacy in State matters.
Criticism of the Judgment
Critics argue the Court exceeded its constitutional mandate:
Created timelines not in the Constitution.
Enacted laws by judicial order, which is a legislative function.
Raises concern over judicial overreach and separation of powers.
Support for the Judgment-
Seen as a necessary intervention due to:
Years of inaction by the Governor
Threat to the federal balance
Judiciary as a protector of democracy and constitutional values when executive mechanisms fail.
Underlying Constitutional Design Flaw-
The Constitution borrows the idea of Governors from colonial-era frameworks, where the executive had overriding powers.
The framers left powers of Governors undefined, relying on constitutional conventions, not codified law.
Governors being centrally appointed and often acting on political motives undermines State autonomy.
Long-term Implications and Recommendations-
The Court's decision acts as a temporary corrective—a band-aid over deeper issues of constitutional design.
Urgent need for reforms:
Re-examine the role and necessity of Governors
Codify rules and powers relating to State-Centre relations
Start a national debate on rebalancing centralism introduced in 1949
Conclusion-
The Supreme Court’s ruling is a crucial step in defending federalism and limiting gubernatorial overreach. However, unless followed by structural reforms to clarify the roles and powers of constitutional authorities, such judgments may only provide temporary relief in a system vulnerable to political manipulation.
This judgment marks a milestone in India's constitutional jurisprudence, reaffirming democratic accountability, State autonomy, and judicial activism in the face of executive inaction.
