Governor's Role and Constitutional Clarity

The Union government has failed to resolve the ongoing controversy surrounding the arbitrary and undemocratic use of power by unelected Governors.

Supreme Court Judgment

• A Supreme Court judgment on April 8, 2025, clarified the constitutional position on the powers of the Governor and the President concerning Bills passed by State Assemblies.
• The Division Bench held that Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi’s act of withholding 10 State Bills was "illegal" and "erroneous".
• The judgment provided clarity on the actions available to the Governor and the President once a Bill is presented, despite the Constitution not specifying timelines.

Contentious Nature and Federal Implications

• The power of Governors has been a contentious issue, exacerbated by some Governors' recent actions, straining Centre-State relations.
• The judgment reaffirmed that Governors or the President cannot arbitrarily withhold a law from coming into force.

Centre's Response

Instead of accepting the Court's judgment, the Centre has sought a Presidential Reference under Article 143, rekindling settled questions.

• This approach signals an intent to gain powers not originally intended by the Constitution, through Governors.
• The Court’s judgment offered a framework for consensus, which the Centre could have used to resolve the controversy.
• If needed, the Centre could have pursued constitutional amendments to align with the judgment.

Recommendation

• The Centre should accept the judgment and, if necessary, convene a meeting with Chief Ministers and political parties to address any remaining issues.