SC Verdict on TN Governor — Why it matters for UPSC

Why in the news?

In a significant decision, a bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan of the Supreme Court declared the action of Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi in reserving 10 Bills for the consideration of the President in November last year after their due reconsideration by the state Assembly as erroneous and illegal.

The court laid down the timeline for Governors to decide on Bills presented to them. In an extraordinary move, the court, while exercising powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, also declared the 10 Bills as having received assent.

Key Takeaways:

1. Delineating the role of the Governor, the bench said, “In times of conflict, he must be the harbinger of consensus and resolve issues, lubricating the functioning of the state machinery by his sagacity, wisdom and not run it into a standstill. He must be the catalyst and not an inhibitor. All his actions must be held keeping in mind the dignity of the high constitutional office that he occupies.”

2. While laying down the timeline for Governors to decide on Bills, the Supreme Court referred to Article 200 of the Constitution. Article 200 specifically deals with the issue of granting assent to Bills. When a Bill passed by the legislature of a state is presented to the Governor, the Governor has four options: (1) grant assent to the Bill; (2) withhold assent to the Bills; (3) return the Bills for reconsideration; or (4) reserve the Bill for the consideration of the President.

3. The proviso in Article 200 says the Governor must return the Bill “as soon as possible,” but does not prescribe a specific timeframe. An indefinite timeline in deciding on Bills can, in effect, amount to paralysing the elected government. Therefore, in this ruling Supreme Court has set the timeline for Governors to decide on Bills. The court fixed maximum time limits of one to three months for Governors to take a call on Bills.

Other important constitutional provisions related to the Governor

1. Article 153 of the Constitution says, “There shall be a Governor for each State.” A few years after the commencement of the Constitution, an amendment in 1956 laid down that “nothing in this article shall prevent the appointment of the same person as Governor for two or more States”.

2. Article 155 says that the “Governor of a State shall be appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal”. Under Article 156, “the Governor shall hold office during the pleasure of the President.”

3. Articles 157 and 158 lay down the qualifications of the Governor and the conditions of his office. The Governor must be a citizen of India and should have completed the age of 35 years. The Governor should not be a member of Parliament or a state legislature, and must not hold any other office of profit.

4. Article 163 of the Constitution states that the Governor is bound to exercise his functions only after the Council of Ministers and the Chief Minister of a state give their “aid and advice”, unless the Constitution specifically requires him/her to exercise discretion.

5. Article 173 of the Constitution grants the Governor the power to summon, prorogue (discontinue) or dissolve the Assembly, the Court held that this can be exercised only after consulting the Council of Ministers.

6. The Governor enjoys certain powers under the Constitution like determining the time needed for a party to prove its majority in the state Assembly; or, in cases such as a hung verdict in an election, which party must be called first to prove its majority.

What reforms have been suggested

→ From the Administrative Reforms Commission of 1968 to the Sarkaria Commission of 1988, several panels have recommended reforms, such as the selection of the Governor through a panel comprising the PM, Home Minister, Lok Sabha Speaker and the CM, apart from fixing his tenure for five years. Recommendations have also been made for a provision to impeach the Governor by the Assembly.

→ In 2001, the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution set up by the Atal Bihari Vajpayee government, had noted, “… Because the Governor owes his appointment and his continuation in the office to the Union Council of Ministers, in matters where the Central Government and the State Government do not see eye to eye, there is the apprehension that he is likely to act in accordance with the instructions, if any, received from the Union Council of Ministers… Indeed, the Governors today are being pejoratively called the ‘agents of the Centre’.”

President vs Governor

The key difference between the governor and the president is in the manner of appointment and removal — whereas the president is elected by the elected representatives of the country, the governor is appointed by the Union government alone. Whereas the president can only be removed by way of impeachment, the governor can be removed from office at the pleasure of the Union government.

BEYOND THE NUGGET: Bommai judgment

📍Whenever the issue of the role of the governor comes into question, one of the significant cases that comes into sight is the Bommai judgment. It came at a time when the President’s rule was frequently recommended by the Governor to dismiss state governments run by opposition parties under Article 356. This became notable because it was one of the first by the SC to scrutinize the conduct of the Governor’s office in the imposition of presidential rule in the state.

📍In the SR Bommai v Union of India case of 1994, the Court unanimously held that the President’s proclamation can be subject to judicial review on grounds of illegality, malafide, extraneous considerations, abuse of power, or fraud. It also laid down the supremacy of the floor test in determining the support enjoyed by the party in power.

📍The Supreme Court had said the Governor’s action should be to protect the Constitution and not to promote the political interests of any political party. “Undisputedly, a Governor is charged with the duty to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and the laws, has a concomitant duty and obligation to preserve democracy and not to permit the ‘canker’ of political defections to tear into the vitals of the Indian democracy,” it had said, adding that the courts could look into any malafide decision.

Post read question

(1) Which one of the following suggested that the Governor should be an eminent person from outside the State and should be a detached figure without intense political links or should not have taken part in politics in the recent past? (2019)

(a) First Administrative Reforms Commission (1966)

(b) Rajamannar Committee (1969)

(c) Sarkaria Commission (1983)

(d) National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (2000)

(2) Which one of the following statements is correct? (2013)

(a) In India, the same person cannot be appointed as Governor for two or more States at the same time

(b) The Judges of the High Court of the States in India are appointed by the Governor of the State just as the Judges of the Supreme Court are appointed by the President

(c) No procedure has been laid down in the Constitution of India for the removal of a Governor from his/her post

(d) In the case of a Union Territory having a legislative setup, the Chief Minister is appointed by the Lt. Governor on the basis of majority support

Subscribe to our UPSC newsletter. Stay updated with the latest UPSC articles by joining our Telegram channel – IndianExpress UPSC Hub, and follow us on Instagram and X.

🚨 Click Here to read the UPSC Essentials magazine for March 2025. Share your views and suggestions in the comment box or at manas.srivastava@indianexpress.com🚨