Landmark Supreme Court Judgment: Strengthening Federalism in India

The Supreme Court's judgment in the case of State of Tamil Nadu vs The Governor of Tamil Nadu and Another on April 8, signifies a pivotal moment in India's constitutional history, emphasizing the importance of federalism. The ruling underscores the principle of the "Union of States" as outlined in the Indian Constitution.

Context and Background

• The Indian Constitution, intended as a guiding vision rather than an operational manual, has undergone over 100 amendments and multiple landmark Supreme Court judgments in the past 75 years.
• Since 2014, there has been a trend towards centralization by the Union government, often interfering with state governance through the appointment of governors in opposition-led states.
• This centralization has prompted several states to seek legal recourse from the Supreme Court against gubernatorial (related to Governor) actions, as seen in cases involving Kerala and Punjab.

The Tamil Nadu Case

• The case involved 10 bills held in abeyance by the Governor of Tamil Nadu for years, obstructing legislative processes. These bills primarily concerned universities, crucially impacted by the COVID-19 crisis.
• The obstructed bills dated back to 2020, including one renaming the Tamil Nadu Fisheries University after J Jayalalithaa.
• The Tamil Nadu Chief Minister, M K Stalin, facilitated the re-passing of all 10 bills verbatim, regardless of their origin, ensuring a legal victory by asserting states' rights and federalism.

Supreme Court's Judgment

• The judgment limits governors' ability to obstruct legislation, addressing a procedural lacuna in the Constitution.
• It extended principles from the November 2023 ruling in State of Punjab vs Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab and Another, affirming that real power resides with elected representatives.
• The Court exercised its extraordinary powers under Article 142, deeming the bills as assented to upon re-passing, countering the Governor's administrative obstruction.
• The ruling clarifies time frames for gubernatorial and presidential actions under Articles 200 and 201, promoting accountability and preventing indefinite delays.

Impact and Significance

• The judgment upholds the democratic principle that no individual, elected or unelected, should wield absolute power over an elected government.
• The ruling equates the authority of India's President and Governors, rejecting the notion of absolute or pocket vetoes and ensuring judicial review of their actions.
• It aligns with key historical judgments like Kesavananda Bharati (1973) and S R Bommai (1994), fortifying India's federal structure.
• The decision represents a victory for citizens, states, and the concept of federalism, setting India on a path toward a more united and progressive future.