Raj Bhawan, Chennai
By G Krishna Mohan Rao*
Political circles are abuzz with speculation regarding the future of Tamil Nadu Governor Ravindra Narayana Ravi, following the Supreme Court’s recent critical remarks directed at him. There are questions about whether he will step down to take moral responsibility for the situation. However, the Raj Bhavan in Chennai has yet to provide any definitive statements on the matter.
The Supreme Court’s ruling that overturned the Tamil Nadu governor’s decision to effectively halt ten re-enacted state Bills by seeking presidential approval marks a significant milestone. This is particularly noteworthy given the current climate, where several governors face accusations of overstepping their authority in states governed by parties opposed to the BJP. The court’s establishment of clear timelines for both withholding assent and reserving a bill for presidential review bodes positively for the integrity of India’s federal system.
The highest court’s ruling marks a clear triumph for Chief Minister MK Stalin and the ruling Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), especially with assembly elections approaching in less than a year. This decision is poised to influence ongoing conflicts in states like West Bengal, Kerala, and Telangana, where similar petitions against governors have been filed with the court. In Kerala, the government led by Pinarayi Vijayan has been embroiled in a dispute with former governor Arif Mohammad Khan regarding numerous bills that remained unresolved for 23 months.
The Supreme Court, in its ruling, declared that the governor of Tamil Nadu had breached constitutional guidelines by delaying action on Bills. The Court emphasized that the Governor displayed a “scant respect” for multiple decisions made by the highest court. It said that the Governor failed to act in good faith when he forwarded the Bills to the President after they were returned by the State Assembly for further consideration. The ruling clarified that once the Assembly re-sent the Bills, the Governor was obligated to grant his approval.
In political discussions, the Supreme Court’s decision was viewed as a reinforcement of the federal framework and the democratic rights of legislative bodies. The Court reiterated that governors are required to follow the counsel of their cabinets. Additionally, it warned against the increasing inclination of governors to overstep their authority and interfere with the powers of elected legislatures. Furthermore, all ten Bills that had been held back by the governor will now be considered as approved by him.
The Supreme Court emphasized that the Constitution does not permit governors to wield an “absolute veto” or a “pocket veto” by postponing decisions on Bills indefinitely. According to Article 200 of the Constitution, the governor has three choices when presented with a Bill: to grant assent, to withhold it and return it for further consideration, or to reserve it for the President. Additionally, the Supreme Court clarified that a Bill can only be reserved for the President initially and not after it has been reconsidered by the Assembly.
The Constitution specifies that the governor must act “as soon as possible,” yet it does not define a specific timeframe, allowing governors the potential to postpone their decision on granting assent—an essential step for legislation to become law—for extended periods, even months. The Supreme Court has ruled that if assent is to be granted, it should occur within one month. Additionally, the court established a three-month period for situations where a bill is referred back to the assembly for further consideration or sent to the President.
The court’s ruling stated that, generally, the governor cannot reserve a Bill for the President once it has been reintroduced by the government after being passed again by the assembly. The sole exception to this rule occurs when the second version of the Bill differs from the original. In response to Governor Ravi’s argument that he could refuse to give assent to Bills without returning them to the assembly for further consideration, the court clarified that this option is not permitted by the Constitution.
The problem of Raj Bhavans overstepping their constitutional boundaries can be traced back to the Nehru era, notably marked by the 1959 dismissal of the EMS Namboodiripad government in Kerala, which had a legislative majority. This pattern persisted during Indira Gandhi’s tenure, as many state governments were ousted from power by the governor’s office.
Since 2014, several Raj Bhavans throughout the nation have sought to position themselves as alternative power hubs in states governed by parties other than the BJP. This has reinforced the belief that certain constitutional appointees are overstepping their boundaries and encroaching upon the authority of state governments, seemingly prioritizing conflict and escalation over collaborative governance.
*Senior journalist
