The Role and Authority of the Governor in State Legislative Processes

The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment in The State of Tamil Nadu vs The Governor of Tamil Nadu and Anr., reaffirmed the constitutional boundaries of the Governor's authority. This case highlighted a crucial aspect of federalism and representative democracy: the Governor is bound by legal norms and is not an independent power center.

Key Issues and Court's Findings

• Inaction on State Bills:
  The case centered around the Governor's inaction on 12 Bills passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, which languished without assent. This included Bills aiming to change the Governor's power to appoint Vice-Chancellors to public universities.
• Judicial Scrutiny:
  The Supreme Court scrutinized the Governor's conduct, which the State claimed disrupted the legislative process and undermined democratic principles.

Constitutional Provisions and Interpretation

• Article 200:
  This article governs how a Governor should assent to a Bill. It provides three options: grant assent, withhold assent and return the Bill for reconsideration, or reserve it for the President's consideration.
• Union's Argument:
  The Union contended that Article 200 allowed the Governor a fourth option, an absolute veto to withhold assent without returning the Bill. However, this was rejected in the State of Punjab vs Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab (2023), reaffirming only the three provided options.
• Governor's Discretion:
  The Court noted that Article 200's draft version included discretion for the Governor, which was removed in the final version to ensure actions were based on the elected executive's advice.

Judicial Intervention and Outcome

• Judicial Review:
  Despite personal immunity granted to Governors under Article 361, their actions are subject to judicial scrutiny to prevent legislative paralysis.
• Court's Decision:
  The Court, using its power under Article 142, declared the 10 Bills to have been assented to on the date they were re-presented, as there was no constitutional basis for the Governor's inaction.

Broader Implications

• Federal Balance:
  The judgment reinforces that the Governor functions on the advice of the State executive and should not become a source of political conflict, upholding democratic values as a constitutional guardian.

Suhrith Parthasarathy, an advocate at the Madras High Court, emphasizes the significance of this judgment in maintaining the integrity of federal and representative democracy in India.