Facts of the case
This case involves a complex constitutional dispute between the Governor of Tamil Nadu and the state over legislative and administrative matters.
Between January 2020 and April 2023, the Tamil Nadu Legislature passed 12 bills. These bills were sent to the Governor for approval as per the provisions under Article 200 of the Constitution. The Governor refused to approve ten of the bills and set aside two bills for the President’s review in November 2023.
Moreover The Tamil Nadu Government forwarded fifty three files to get the approval for the early release of prisoners, but the Governor’s office did not give any additional information about it after December 2023.The Governor returned files suggesting names for TNPSC appointments, raising eyebrows about transparency and credentials, despite clarifications from the State Government.
The Governor recommended the dismissal of a minister, Senthil Balaji, citing his arrest, but later kept the dismissal in abeyance .The Governor declined to swear in Dr. K. Ponmudy as a minister despite the Supreme Court suspending his conviction.The State of Tamil Nadu approached the Supreme Court via a writ petition under Article 32, asserting that the Governor’s actions and inactions are unconstitutional, unjust and against the rules of Articles 14, 19, and 21.The Court declared the Governor’s reservation of bills for the President’s consideration in the second round as illegal and erroneous, deeming the ten bills as “assented to” by the Governor.The Court highlighted that the Governor’s actions as per Article 200 are subject to judicial review if they violate constitutional principles or are arbitrary, mala fide, or motivated by extraneous considerations
Issues of the case
1. Does Article 200 of the Constitution give the Governor the power to completely reject a bill (an ‘absolute veto’) or to let it sit without acting on it (a ‘pocket veto’) ?
2.Examining the legitimacy of the Governor’s actions in withholding assent or reserving bills for presidential consideration, and whether the Governor’s inaction or delay breaches constitutional principles.
3. Can the Governor reserve a bill for the President after reconsideration under Article 200 if he previously withheld assent and did not reserve it initially?
4. Whether the Governor is bound by the aid and advice of the State Council of Ministers.
5. Is the Governor’s discretion under Article 200 open to judicial review? If it is, what are the specific parameters that define this?
6.What action is mandated of the President under Article 201 when a bill is reserved by the Governor under Article 200? Is the President’s decision to withhold assent under Article 201 subject to judicial review, and if so, to what extent can the courts review the President’s powers granted by this article?
7.Whether the Supreme Court can consider the bills as “assented to” due to prolonged delays and unconstitutional actions.
ARGUMENTS / CONTENSIONS
Petitioners Side
Tamil Nadu state (The Petitioner ) argued that the head of the Tamil Nadu state Mr. R.N.Ravi’s actions and his inaction is violating the constitutional principles, arbitrary in nature and are unconstitutional.
The state claims that the governor’s ongoing delay acts like an unconstitutional “pocket veto.” This means his actions are unconstitutional and violate the law. The state also argues that…The Governor’s holding of bills for the President’s consideration was done with mala fide intent to delay the legislative process and circumvent judicial scrutiny. The Governor is bound to act on the aid and advice of the State Council of Ministers under Article 163(1) and has no independent discretion in legislative matters. And it is unconstitutional for the Governor to refuse to approve laws without valid reasons or to send bills to the President after the State Legislature has already reconsidered them.The petitioner mainly emphasized on the governor to must act in accordance with the constitutional principles, constitutional values, and respect the voice of state legislature, should act within the power bestowed upon him by the virtue of the constitution and uphold the democratic values.
Respondent Side
The respondent ( The Governor of Tamil Nadu) in response presented the argument that the governor by the virtue of article 200 has the discretion to reserve bills for the President’s consideration or withhold assent, especially in cases of constitutional concerns.
He further mentioned that the article 200 does not prescribe any specific timeline for the governor to act on the bills, the phrase/expression ‘as soon as possible ‘ in no way mandates the governor for immediate action.
The governor’s office strongly asserted that the discretion conferred by Article 200 is non-justiciable and encompasses vital sovereign functions. The respondent argued that the Governor acted based on constitutional duties, not for political reasons or with malafide intent. He acted in accordance with constitutional morality and his role as a constitutional head of the state.
The Governor’s advocate argued against considering the bills as “assented to” under Article 142. He said that this would undermine the constitutional process and weaken the President’s role, which challenges the separation of powers.
Rationale behind the ruling of supreme court
The rationale of the ruling is based upon the interpretation of article 200 and 201, declaring the actions of the governor of tamil nadu as violative , unconstitutional and unlawful at best.The Governor has three choices when it comes to a bill: they can approve it, deny it, or set it aside for the President to consider. The Governor must act quickly and cannot just ignore the bill or reject it outright. They should follow the advice of the State Council of Ministers and do not have the power to make independent decisions on regular legislative matters. The Governor has three months to act based on this advice. .The apex court in their ruling and by the interpretation of article 142 prescribed reasonable time-limits for the Governor and President to act on bills to prevent undue delays which is three months and “assented to” to the 10 bills which were delayed due to the inactions of the president and governor .
The court declared that the President must act swiftly and provide clear reasons for rejecting a bill. It further confirmed that the President has the authority to seek the Supreme Court’s guidance on constitutional matters. The court ruled that the governor’s decision to refer the bill to the President was illegal and emphasized that the governor must fulfill their constitutional duties without interfering in political or legislative affairs.
The judgment was delivered with the aim of upholding constitutional values, ensure accountability of constitutional authorities.
DEFECT OF LAW
The core defect highlighted by the supreme court is the governor’s arbitrary misuse of power conferred upon him by article 200 of the constitution . The Indian constitution does not prescribe the indefinite withholding of billis via pocket veto, but here the governor did delay the action on 12 bills.
The court stated that the The governor made a decision on his own and ignored the advice of the council of ministers., which misused his discretionary power. The Supreme Court stressed the need to set a timeline for governors to act on legislative bills. The court laid out clear guidelines about the powers of governors under Article 200 of the Constitution. The bench also highlighted the importance of using its special powers under Article 142, saying it is “absolutely necessary and appropriate” in this situation.
INFERENCE
In this scenario the supreme court upheld the constitutional principle that the governor must follow and laid the timeline for the governor. This limitation on the governor’s discretionary power ensures accountability and puts a restraint on them. The court further directed the governor to act on the bills within the prescribed timeline with the aid and advice of the council of ministers of state legislature to avoid future delay . The supreme court in this ruling upheld the spirit of the constitution , and instructed the governor to value its principles as well. The court further stated even though a prescribed time is not given but to misuse the power is the violation of the constitution .This judgement may influence the method for passing a bill, distribution of power between the federal and state government,and moreover if the legislature fails to pass the bill the court may assent it .
This judgement reflects the spirit of federalism and the separation of power but at the same time they overlap the separation of power under the disguise of article 142 by assenting the bill .
Nonetheless the spirit of cooperative federalism was held high in this ruling .
Arushi
Law College Dehradun, Uttaranchal University