Source: Indian Express  

Introduction 

The Supreme Court of India is currently examining crucial petitions filed by the Tamil Nadu government regarding the constitutional scope of Governor's powers in the legislative process under Article 200 of Indian Constitution. The case primarily states the Governor's authority to delay or withhold assent on Bills passed by the state legislature, with potential implications for democratic governance. Multiple opposition-ruled states have filed similar petitions, making the Tamil Nadu case a significant precedent. 

What is the Background of the Tamil Nadu Governor v. State Government dispute? 

• The dispute emerged after RN Ravi's appointment as Tamil Nadu Governor in September 2021, when tensions arose between the DMK-led state government and the Governor over the handling of legislative Bills. 
• The Tamil Nadu government observed a pattern where Governor Ravi was consistently withholding assent on multiple Bills, with some pending since January 2023, leading to significant legislative delays. 
• In November 2023, the Tamil Nadu government approached the Supreme Court, challenging the Governor's actions and seeking clarity on the constitutional boundaries of gubernatorial powers under Article 200. 
• During the initial hearing on 6th November 2023, the Supreme Court made a significant observation, stating that "Governors cannot be oblivious to the fact that they are not elected representatives of the people." 
• Following this development, the Tamil Nadu Assembly took proactive steps by re-enacting the pending Bills that had been stalled by the Governor. 
• However, Governor Ravi responded by referring two of these re-enacted Bills to the President for consideration and continued to withhold assent for the remaining Bills, further escalating the constitutional crisis. 
• The case gained broader significance as other opposition-ruled states including Kerala, Telangana, and Punjab filed similar petitions, stating a pattern of gubernatorial delays in legislative processes across multiple states. 
• This constitutional dispute has now become a precedent-setting case that will determine the scope of the Governor's powers, particularly regarding timeframes for assent and the limits of their authority to withhold or reserve Bills. 

What are the Issues Before the Supreme Court? 

• Governor's Authority on Second Withholding: 
  • The Court must determine if a Governor can withhold assent a second time after the state Assembly has passed a Bill following its initial withholding 
  • This is particularly significant when the Governor did not initially reserve the Bill for Presidential consideration 
  • The issue questions the constitutional limits of repeated withholding of assent 
• Scope of Presidential Referral Power: 
  • The Court needs to clarify whether the Governor's power to refer Bills to the President is universal or limited to specific categories 
  • This involves examining what types of Bills can be legitimately referred to the President 
  • The constitutional parameters for such referrals need to be clearly defined 
• Presidential Referral Criteria: 
  • The Court must establish the valid considerations that should influence a Governor's decision to refer a Bill to the President 
  • This includes determining what legitimate grounds justify bypassing state-level assent in favor of Presidential consideration 
  • The Court needs to set guidelines to prevent arbitrary referrals 
• Constitutional Validity of Pocket Veto: 
  • The Court needs to address the practice of 'pocket veto' where Governors hold Bills indefinitely without action 
  • This involves examining whether such indefinite delays are constitutionally permissible 
  • The Court must determine if this practice aligns with democratic principles and constitutional governance 
• Time Frame for Gubernatorial Assent: 
  • The Court needs to interpret the phrase "as soon as possible" in Article 200 
  • This involves potentially setting specific timeframes or guidelines for Governors to act on Bills 
  • The Court must balance administrative flexibility with the need for timely legislative processes 

What is Article 200 of Indian Constitution? 

• Initial Presentation Requirement: A Bill must first be passed by the State Legislative Assembly, or in states with a Legislative Council, by both Houses of the Legislature, before it can be presented to the Governor for consideration. 
• Three Primary Options for Governor: The Governor has three distinct choices upon receiving a Bill: 
  • Grant assent to the Bill 
  • Withhold assent from the Bill 
  • Reserve the Bill for Presidential consideration 
• Return for Reconsideration Power: The Governor possesses the authority to return a Bill (except Money Bills) to the House(s) for reconsideration, along with specific recommendations for amendments. 
• Time Constraint for Return: The Constitution mandates that if the Governor wishes to return a Bill, it must be done "as soon as possible" after the Bill is presented for assent, within timely action. 
• Scope of Recommendations: When returning a Bill, the Governor can: 
  • Request reconsideration of the entire Bill 
  • Ask for review of specific provisions 
  • Suggest specific amendments 
• Legislative Reconsideration Process: Upon return, the House(s) must reconsider the Bill along with the Governor's recommendations, though they are not bound to accept these suggestions. 
• Mandatory Assent After Reconsideration: If the House(s) pass the Bill again, with or without incorporating the Governor's suggested amendments, the Governor cannot withhold assent when it is presented a second time. 
• High Court Protection Clause: The Governor must reserve any Bill for Presidential consideration if, in their opinion, it would diminish the High Court's powers to an extent that threatens its constitutional position. 
• Exception to Money Bills: The power to return Bills specifically excludes Money Bills, creating a special category that must be dealt with differently from other legislative matters. 
• Constitutional Balance: The Article creates a careful balance between gubernatorial oversight and legislative supremacy, while also protecting the judiciary's constitutional position through the mandatory Presidential referral clause.

What are the Constitutional and Legal Precedents Governing the Governor's Assent to Bills? 

• Constitutional Framework: Article 200 contains the phrase "as soon as possible" regarding Governor's assent to Bills, but notably lacks any specific or defined timeline for such actions, creating room for interpretation and potential delays. 
• Historical Precedent - Nabam Rebia & Bamang Felix v. Deputy Speaker Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly (2016): In this landmark case, Justice Madan Lokur, as part of a five-judge Constitution Bench, provided significant guidance through a separate concurring opinion that established key principles about gubernatorial powers. 
• Prohibition on Indefinite Withholding: The Supreme Court has explicitly ruled that Governors cannot withhold assent to Bills indefinitely, establishing a clear limitation on gubernatorial discretion in the legislative process. 
• Return Mechanism: The Court has established that if a Governor has concerns about a Bill, they must return it to the Assembly with a message, which can include specific recommendations for amendments. 
• Recent Punjab Case (November 2023): The Supreme Court observed its position while hearing the Punjab government's case against Governor Banwarilal Purohit regarding four pending Bills, demonstrating consistency in its interpretation. 
• Interpretation of "As Soon As Possible": The Court has clarified that this constitutional phrase means Governors cannot keep Bills pending indefinitely without taking any action, requiring some form of timely response. 
• Current Position: While the Supreme Court has addressed the issue of timeframes in various decisions, it has notably refrained from imposing specific timelines on Governors, maintaining a balance between gubernatorial discretion and legislative efficiency. 
• Evolving Jurisprudence: The current Tamil Nadu case presents an opportunity for the Supreme Court to potentially establish more specific guidelines or timeframes for gubernatorial action on legislative Bills. 

Landmark Cases  

Nabam Rebia and Bamang Felix v. Deputy Speaker (2016)  

• In this significant case, Justice Madan Lokur, writing a separate concurring opinion as part of a five-judge Constitution Bench, established a crucial principle regarding gubernatorial powers. 
• The Court explicitly ruled that Governors cannot indefinitely withhold assent to Bills, establishing a clear limitation on gubernatorial discretion. 
• The judgment mandated that Governors must return Bills to the Assembly with specific messages or recommendations if they have concerns, rather than keeping them pending indefinitely. 

The State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab and Anr. (2023): 

• The case arose when the Punjab Governor refused to summon the Vidhan Sabha for its Budget Session and subsequently took no action on four passed Bills, leading the State to approach the Supreme Court under Article 32. 
• The Supreme Court bench, led by CJI DY Chandrachud, observed that the Governor's power to withhold assent under Article 200 must be read in conjunction with the obligation to return the Bill to the state legislature for reconsideration. 
• The Court firmly established that the Governor, being an unelected head, cannot use constitutional powers to obstruct the normal legislative process, and must either grant assent or return the Bill with recommendations rather than keeping it pending indefinitely. 
• This judgment observed and built upon the principles established in the Nabam Rebia case, creating a stronger framework for gubernatorial accountability in the legislative process. 

Conclusion:  

While Article 200 mandates Governors to act "as soon as possible" on Bills presented for assent, it lacks a specific timeline for such actions. The Supreme Court, through previous judgments including Nabam Rebia & Bamang Felix v. Deputy Speaker Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly (2016), has established that Governors cannot indefinitely withhold assent but must return Bills to the Assembly with recommendations if needed. The Court's decision in this case will likely establish clearer guidelines on gubernatorial powers and timeframes for legislative actions.