In a recent landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India strongly criticized the actions of Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi, highlighting the governor's failure to act within the boundaries of law when handling Bills passed by the state assembly. The court's remarks raised significant concerns about the functioning of state governance and the proper role of governors in the legislative process. Let’s explore the key details and implications of this ruling.
Governor's Role and Responsibilities: What the Law Says
The Constitution of India defines the role of the governor in the legislative process. According to the law, when a bill is passed by a state assembly, it must be presented to the governor for assent. The governor’s role is typically to either give consent to the bill or reserve it for further consideration by the President if it raises significant issues. However, the governor cannot indefinitely withhold assent or use what is known as an “absolute veto” or “pocket veto” — that is, neither rejecting nor approving the bill.
The Case in Focus: Tamil Nadu’s 10 Pending Bills
The case in question centered on 10 Bills passed by the Tamil Nadu assembly that were returned by Governor RN Ravi without assent. These Bills had been sent back to the assembly after being initially returned by the governor. After reconsideration, the assembly passed these Bills again, yet the governor still refused to grant them approval.
The Supreme Court condemned this inaction and declared the governor's actions to be contrary to the law. The court emphasized that when a Bill is resubmitted to the governor after being reconsidered by the assembly, the governor is expected to give assent unless the Bill has changed substantially. If the Bill remains unchanged then the governor cannot refuse assent.
The Court’s Findings: Governor’s Action Deemed Illegal and Arbitrary
The bench, consisting of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, made it clear that the governor’s decision to withhold assent was not only legally incorrect but also arbitrary. The court found that the governor had kept the Bills pending for an unreasonable period and in some cases had sent them to the President only after the Supreme Court’s ruling in a similar case involving the Punjab governor. This ruling had clarified that governors cannot simply delay or hold back Bills without valid reasons as it would interfere with the functioning of the state legislature.
The Legal Consequences: Setting Aside the Governor’s Actions
In response to the governor's failure to act in good faith, the Supreme Court ruled that the Bills should be considered as "passed." The governor’s actions were deemed to be in violation of the Constitution and the decision to reserve the Bills for presidential approval was nullified. The court’s ruling serves as a reminder of the importance of timely and appropriate action by governors by ensuring that they fulfill their constitutional duties without delaying the legislative process.
The Supreme Court’s judgment stands as a critical confirmation of the need for governors to respect the constitutional framework and the will of state assemblies. By declaring the governor’s actions illegal and arbitrary, the court has ensured that the democratic process in states is protected from unnecessary delays or interference. This ruling serves as a precedent that reinforces the principle that governors must act in good faith and in accordance with the law, nurturing a healthier and more accountable system of governance.
A Historic Victory for State Rights: Tamil Nadu Welcomes Supreme Court Verdict
In a moment of pride and constitutional affirmation, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin expressed heartfelt gratitude to the Supreme Court of India. Speaking on behalf of the State Government, elected MLAs, and the people of Tamil Nadu, Mr. Stalin thanked the apex court for upholding the rights of State Legislative Assemblies as guaranteed by the Indian Constitution. Chief Minister Stalin reflected on the persistent efforts of his party, the DMK, in challenging the actions of Governor R.N. Ravi. The party had taken legal action in the Supreme Court after the Governor delayed approval for Bills that were passed in the State Assembly. Mr. Stalin called the Court’s ruling a "historic" one by emphasizing its importance in protecting state autonomy.
Joining the Chief Minister in his remarks, Leader of the House and senior DMK Minister Duraimurugan also described the judgment as historic. He reminded the Assembly of a similar moment in 1974, when former Chief Minister and DMK leader M. Karunanidhi led a discussion on the Rajamannar Committee report, which focused on giving more autonomy to states within the Indian union.
In a speech filled with emotion and pride, Mr. Duraimurugan praised Stalin for carrying forward the legacy of his father, M. Karunanidhi. He drew comparisons to legendary Tamil rulers like Emperor Rajendra Chola and Emperor Narasimhavarman I of the Pallava dynasty, saying that Mr. Stalin had made his father proud through his leadership and dedication.
Speaker M. Appavu also took the opportunity to congratulate Chief Minister Stalin on behalf of the entire House. Political parties across the Assembly, with the exception of the AIADMK and the BJP, welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision. They praised both the DMK government and Stalin’s tireless efforts in defending the authority of the State Assembly. In response to Mr. Stalin’s request, DMK legislators and their allies in the Assembly expressed their appreciation by enthusiastically thumping their desks—a traditional sign of approval in legislative houses. The spirit of celebration continued even after the House was adjourned for the day. DMK members were seen distributing sweets within the Assembly premises, turning a political win into a shared moment of joy.
. . .
References: