Supreme Court Landmark Verdict on the Powers of Governors

Supreme Court Landmark Verdict on the Powers of Governors

Why in News? 

Recently, the Supreme Court declared the Tamil Nadu Governor’s refusal to give assent to 10 state bills as unconstitutional. In this landmark judgment, the Court made it clear that the Governor must act on bills in a time-bound manner so that the legislative process of the state is not disrupted.

Supreme Court’s Historic Verdict on Governor’s Powers: 

• Disagreement over Bills: The Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly passed 12 bills, some of which were related to the process of appointing Vice-Chancellors in state universities. These bills were sent to the Governor for approval, but he withheld assent to 10 of them and referred two bills to the President for consideration. The Governor’s use of a “pocket veto” (silently holding back the bills) led to administrative deadlock.
• Re-passage in the Assembly: Dissatisfied with the Governor’s inaction, the Tamil Nadu Assembly held a special session in November 2023 and re-passed the same 10 bills. However, the Governor once again withheld assent. Thereafter, the state government filed a petition in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional powers of the Governor.
• Supreme Court: On April 8, 2025, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court (Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan) exercised its powers under Article 142 and declared the 10 bills as approved.

Supreme Court’s Historic Decision on the Governor’s Powers

• The Supreme Court clarified that the Governor is only a constitutional head and is bound to act on the advice of the elected government and the Council of Ministers.
• The Court reiterated that the Governor cannot, under any circumstance, independently exercise “absolute veto” over bills.
• When a bill is re-passed by the Assembly without any change in its content, the Governor must compulsorily give assent.
• While interpreting Article 200, the Court stated that the phrase “as soon as possible” is not merely formal but entails constitutional urgency in decision-making.
• The Court declared the use of “pocket veto” (indefinitely withholding bills silently) as unconstitutional.
• The Court also prescribed specific timelines regarding bills:
  • Decision must be taken within one month of receiving the bill.
  • If the Governor decides against the advice of the State Cabinet, the maximum period allowed is three months.
  • If the bill is re-passed, the Governor must give assent within one month.
  • If the Governor fails to act within the prescribed time, such inaction will be subject to judicial review and considered a violation of the Constitution.

Wider Impact of the Supreme Court’s Historic Decision

• Legislative Accountability: This decision reaffirms the accountability of state legislatures, which represent the will of the people. The Governor can no longer indefinitely stall bills passed by an elected government.
• Strengthening Federalism: The verdict protects the federal structure of India, where the legislative and policy autonomy of states is paramount. It reinforces that state governments are not just subordinate units of the Centre but are empowered by the Constitution.
• Clear Interpretation of Article 200: The Court clarified that the word “shall” in Article 200 is mandatory, not optional. The Governor must take a decision on a bill within a fixed time frame.
• Pocket Veto: The decision ends the trend of Governors using “pocket veto” to indefinitely block legislative actions. Holding back a bill without assent or refusal is now deemed unconstitutional.
• Judicial Uniformity: What began in Tamil Nadu will now provide clear guidance in similar disputes pending in states like Kerala, Punjab, Telangana, and West Bengal. This decision will ensure judicial uniformity across the country.

Governor’s Constitutional Powers Relating to Bills

• Legislative Assent by Governor: When a bill is passed by the State Assembly, the Governor is the first constitutional authority to decide its fate. He may approve it without any changes, turning it into law. This process falls under Article 200 and marks the usual conclusion of legislative procedure.
• Power to Withhold Assent: The Governor has the power to withhold assent to a bill, but according to the recent Supreme Court decision, this power cannot be indefinite or arbitrary. It can be used only in special situations and must be backed with valid reasons.
• Option to Return the Bill: The Governor can send a bill back to the Assembly for reconsideration. If the Assembly re-passes it without changes, the Governor must grant assent.
• President’s Role: If the bill is sent to the President under Article 201, the final decision lies with the President. The President may grant assent, withhold it, or send the bill back to the Assembly. The Legislature must act within six months.
• Permission on Money Bills: According to Article 207, no Money Bill can be introduced in the State Assembly without the prior recommendation of the Governor. This reflects the Governor’s constitutional role in maintaining balance in financial policy-making.

Constitutional Concerns Related to the Role of the Governor

• Lack of Transparency: When the Governor withholds assent to a bill or keeps it pending indefinitely, no formal reason or explanation is given. This creates confusion for both the government and the public.
• Impact of Political Differences: In opposition-ruled states, Governors have been accused of deliberately withholding bills for political reasons. This not only obstructs the functioning of state governments but also causes tension and imbalance in Centre-State relations.
• Unnecessary Interference: In recent years, several Governors have actively interfered in administrative decisions, which affects the autonomy of elected governments. This leads to serious disruption in policy-making and implementation and creates governance paralysis.
• Ambiguity in Accountability: The Governor is accountable only to the President and their appointment and removal are under the control of the Central Government. This results in a lack of democratic accountability and transparency in the Governor’s role, which is not in the interest of the state.

Important Supreme Court Cases Related to Governors

• Kaushal Kishore vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023): In this case, the Supreme Court clarified that individuals holding political or constitutional positions also enjoy freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a), and restrictions can only be imposed based on reasonable grounds mentioned in Article 19(2).
• Nabam Rebia vs. Deputy Speaker (2016): In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court laid down important guidelines regarding the role and discretionary powers of the Governor. Referring to events in Arunachal Pradesh and Article 174, the Court held that the Governor cannot independently decide legislative proceedings, summon sessions, or set the agenda. These functions must be based on the advice of the State Council of Ministers.

Recommendations of Commissions on Appointment and Removal of Governors

• Appointment of Governors: 
  • The Sarkaria Commission (1988) and Venkatachaliah Commission (2002) both emphasized that the appointment of Governors should be more transparent, politically neutral, and within constitutional norms.
    • The Sarkaria Commission suggested that consultation with the Chief Minister of the concerned state must be mandatory before appointment.
    • The Venkatachaliah Commission proposed the formation of a committee consisting of the Prime Minister, Home Minister, Speaker of Lok Sabha, and the Chief Minister of the concerned state for appointing the Governor.
• Removal of Governors: 
  • The Sarkaria Commission clarified that Governors should be allowed to complete their five-year term and be removed only in rare and compelling situations.
    • The Governor should be given a full opportunity to present their case and must be informed of the reasons for removal.
  • The Venkatachaliah Commission recommended that if a Governor is to be removed before completing the term, consultation with the Chief Minister is necessary.
    • This suggestion is important for ensuring impartiality of the Governor and maintaining balance in Centre-State relations.