Context:

• The Supreme Court judgment delivered on April 8 in State of Tamil Nadu vs The Governor of Tamil Nadu and Another, marks a golden day in the history of India.
• It marks a watershed moment in reinforcing the federal structure of the Constitution and limiting gubernatorial overreach.
• It upholds the principle that India is a “Union of States”, and that elected governments must not be subverted by unelected authorities.

Background - The Rise of Constitutional Ambiguities and Central Overreach:

• Vision vs operation of the Constitution:
  • Constitution envisioned as a visionary document, not a mere operational manual.
  • Over time, required interpretation and evolution through over 100 amendments and landmark SC judgments.
• Centralization since 2014:
  • Alleged centralization of power by the Union government, often via obstructive gubernatorial appointments.
  • States like Kerala and Punjab have taken governors to court over interference in Assembly proceedings.

The Tamil Nadu Case - Delay, Politics, and Legal Resolution:

• The Controversy:
  • 10 Bills, some dating back to 2020, were withheld indefinitely by the Tamil Nadu Governor.
  • Bills pertained to state universities, critical sectors post-COVID.
• Role of Current CM:
  • Re-passed all 10 bills verbatim, irrespective of the originating government (current or previous).
  • Strategic and principled move, recognizing the larger battle for federal integrity.

Legal Innovations and Doctrinal Advancements:

• Article 142 - Judicial innovation:
  • SC used Article 142 to deem the bills assented to from the date they were re-passed.
  • Asserted judicial intervention to protect the legislative process from executive obstruction.
• Exposing malafide conduct:
  • Governor returned bills at the last moment, attempting procedural manipulation.
  • SC declared the Governor's conduct as “lacking in bonafides”.
• Landmark cases referenced:
  • State of Punjab vs Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab (2023) - Real power lies with elected representatives.
  • Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala (1973) - Basic structure doctrine.
  • S.R. Bommai vs Union of India (1994) - Federalism and President’s rule.

Defining Limits - No Absolute or Pocket Veto:

• Clarity on Articles 200 (Assent to Bills) and 201 (President’s consideration of State Bills):
  • First-time establishment of clear time frames for gubernatorial and presidential actions on state bills.
  • Eliminates ambiguity, counters misuse of indefinite delays or silent rejection.
• No one above the law:
  • Neither President nor Governor has absolute veto or pocket veto.
  • Judicial review applicable to their actions—ensures accountability in a parliamentary democracy.

Conclusion:

Federalism as the Path Forward: The verdict is a victory for all states and citizens. It reinforces cooperative federalism, crucial in today's volatile global and economic climate, and calls for collegiality between States and Union for India’s progress.