Context

• Recently, a landmark judgment redefined the limits of gubernatorial authority within India's constitutional framework.
• The Supreme Court of India has delivered a resounding affirmation of democratic principles and federal balance.
• The ruling in State of Tamil Nadu vs The Governor of Tamil Nadu, by Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, underscores the limits of the Governor’s role and reasserts the primacy of the elected State government in a federal democracy.

Constitutional Context and Core Issue

• The central question before the Court was both simple and profound: What happens when a Governor, in defiance of constitutional duty, refuses to act on a Bill duly passed by the State Legislature?
• The dispute arose from the Governor of Tamil Nadu’s inaction and delays in granting assent to 12 Bills passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, some dating back to 2020.
• Among them were Bills aimed at curbing the Governor’s powers in the appointment of Vice-Chancellors to public universities, a contentious issue between the elected government and the Raj Bhavan.
• The Governor’s delay and subsequent unilateral referral of these Bills to the President, without acting on the Council of Ministers’ advice, triggered a constitutional standoff.
• The Supreme Court was called upon to adjudicate whether such conduct was permissible under the Constitution, and whether the Governor could withhold assent indefinitely.

The Limits of Gubernatorial Power, Judicial Review and Accountability

• The Limits of Gubernatorial Power: A Detailed Review of Art 200
  • India’s federal design, as delineated by Articles 245 and the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, establishes a division of powers between the Union and the States.
  • While the Governor is appointed by the President, his or her role is fundamentally ceremonial and constitutionally limited.
  • Except in narrowly defined instances, the Governor must act on the advice of the Council of Ministers.
  • The Union of India argued that Article 200 gives the Governor discretion to withhold assent to a Bill, effectively granting him an absolute veto.
  • However, the Court rejected this interpretation, citing its own precedent in State of Punjab vs Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab (2023).
  • The Court held that Article 200 only allows for three specific courses of action: (1) granting assent, (2) withholding assent and returning the Bill to the Assembly, or (3) reserving the Bill for the President. There is no constitutional basis for the Governor to simply reject a Bill without explanation or process.
  • The Court further examined the intent of the framers of the Constitution by referring to Constituent Assembly Debates.
  • It noted that the phrase ‘in his discretion’ was deliberately omitted from the final version of Article 200, thereby reinforcing that the Governor cannot act independently in deciding whether to refer a Bill to the President.
• Judicial Review and Accountability
  • A critical aspect of the Court’s reasoning lay in the principle of judicial review.
  • While Article 361 provides personal immunity to Governors, it does not place their actions beyond legal scrutiny.
  • Citing Rameshwar Prasad vs Union of India (2006), the Court reaffirmed that the Governor’s actions, especially when they obstruct legislative processes, are subject to judicial oversight.
  • Otherwise, Governors could potentially stall State governance indefinitely, rendering legislative mandates ineffective.
  • In this specific case, the Court found that the Governor had violated constitutional norms by referring the Bills to the President after withholding assent, without any recommendation from the Council of Ministers or valid constitutional rationale.
  • The acts were thus deemed unconstitutional.

Use of Article 142 and the Question of Judicial Overreach

• While the Court could have issued a writ of mandamus compelling the Governor to act, it recognised the practical and legal difficulties in enforcing such an order.
• Instead, invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 142 to do ‘complete justice,’ the Court declared that the 10 Bills in question would be deemed to have received assent on the date they were re-presented to the Governor.
• This unprecedented remedy may raise concerns of judicial overreach.
• However, the Court justified it as a logical and necessary response to constitutional deadlock, especially in light of the prolonged delay and disregard for previous rulings.

The Broader Significance

• Beyond the immediate implications for Tamil Nadu’s legislative agenda, the judgment reaffirms a vital democratic principle: that Governors, despite their Union appointments, are not autonomous actors.
• Their role is to uphold the constitutional scheme, not to frustrate the democratic will of elected State governments.
• As the Court aptly stated, the Governor is not meant to be a political antagonist but a ‘constitutional sentinel.’ 

Conclusion

• The Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Tamil Nadu vs The Governor of Tamil Nadu is a robust reaffirmation of constitutional morality and federalism.
• It draws clear boundaries around gubernatorial power and reiterates the foundational idea that India’s democracy rests on accountable governance and the supremacy of elected institutions.
• In doing so, it not only settles an immediate controversy but also provides enduring guidance for the functioning of India's federal machinery.