Guardians of Democracy: Supreme Court’s Tamil Nadu Verdict and the Reaffirmation of Federalism

Syllabus:

GS – 2– India and the type of federalism , Centre – State relations

Focus :

The Supreme Court’s April 8, 2024 judgment in the Tamil Nadu Governor case is a defining moment for Indian federalism. It reaffirms the constitutional principle that neither elected nor unelected individuals can obstruct the functioning of a democratically elected government. The judgment provides clarity on the roles of Governors, strengthens legislative autonomy, and upholds the democratic will of the people.

Guardians of Democracy: Supreme Court’s Tamil Nadu Verdict and the Reaffirmation of Federalism

Introduction: A Historic Judgment for the Republic

  • On April 8, 2024, the Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment in State of Tamil Nadu
  • The Governor of Tamil Nadu and Another.
  • The case revolved around the Governor’s prolonged inaction on 10 bills passed by the Tamil Nadu Assembly.
  • This judgment is a milestone in strengthening Indian federalism and limiting the discretionary power of unelected constitutional functionaries like Governors.

Constitutional Background: Vision vs. Operation

Constitution as a Vision Document

  • The Indian Constitution was envisaged by the founding fathers as a living document.
  • It is designed to guide governance principles rather than serve as a rigid procedural manual.
  • Over time, constitutional interpretation has evolved through:
    • 100+ amendments
    • Judicial pronouncements (e.g., Kesavananda Bharati, S.R. Bommai)

The “Union of States” Framework

  • India is defined as a “Union of States,” underlining the federal character of governance.
  • Federalism requires equitable distribution of power between Union and State governments.
  • Governors act as bridge figures, but recent trends show their role has become contentious.

Centralisation and Political Obstruction Since 2014

Trends of Central Overreach

  • Since 2014, the Union government has often used Governors as instruments of central influence.
  • Especially in Opposition-ruled states, Governors have interfered in legislative and administrative affairs.
  • This includes blocking bills, delaying assent, and refusing to convene assemblies.

The Role of Partisan Governors

  • Appointments of Governors with overt political affiliations has undermined the neutrality of the office.
  • Cases include:
    • Kerala: Legal battle between state and Governor
    • Punjab: Governor blocked Assembly session, later ruled illegal by SC

Tamil Nadu’s Case: The Core Dispute

The 10 Bills in Abeyance

  • The Tamil Nadu Governor withheld assent to 10 bills over several years, some dating back to 2020.
  • One of the earliest was an AIADMK-era bill renaming the Fisheries University after J Jayalalithaa.
  • The bills primarily related to university administration, crucial during post-COVID recovery.

Inaction as Obstruction

  • The Governor neither returned the bills with objections nor gave assent.
  • This created a legislative impasse and stalled university functioning.
  • The tactic resembled a “pocket veto”, which is not a recognized constitutional mechanism in India.

Legal Strategy and Moral High Ground

MK Stalin’s Bipartisan Decision

  • Tamil Nadu CM MK Stalin re-passed all 10 bills verbatim, regardless of which party had introduced them.
  • This avoided the ambiguity of amended bills, which can be re-evaluated by the Governor.
  • By treating this as a matter of constitutional principle, Stalin strengthened the State’s legal position.

Significance of Verbatim Re-passing

  • The Supreme Court made a key distinction:
    • Identical bills: Withholding assent after re-passing is unconstitutional.
    • Amended bills: Can still be subject to assent/refusal.
  • The CM’s move ensured procedural compliance and placed the onus on the Governor.

Judicial Innovation Under Article 142

Deeming Assent: Extraordinary Remedy

  • The Supreme Court invoked Article 142 to deem the 10 bills assented from the date they were re-passed.
  • Article 142 allows the Court to pass any decree necessary for “complete justice.”
  • This was used to break the deadlock and prevent administrative misuse from derailing the legislative process.

Criticisms and Justifications

  • Some constitutional purists argue this blurs the line between judiciary and executive.
  • However, the Court justified its actions based on:
    • Deliberate delay by the Governor
    • Procedural evasion tactics (e.g., returning photocopies)
    • Attempts to render the case infructuous

Defining Timeframes: A Constitutional Milestone

Articles 200 and 201: A Grey Area

  • Article 200 outlines the Governor’s options:
    • Assent
    • Withhold assent
    • Reserve for the President
    • Return for reconsideration
  • Article 201 provides for presidential assent when a bill is reserved.

Landmark Clarification

  • The judgment sets explicit time limits for gubernatorial and presidential decisions.
  • Previously, these articles were exploited due to their vagueness—only 10 lines of constitutional text.
  • With timeframes now established, Governors cannot stall indefinitely.

Comparative Analysis: Other Historic Judgments

Kesavananda Bharati (1973)

  • Established the “Basic Structure Doctrine”—no constitutional amendment can violate basic principles.
  • The Tamil Nadu verdict upholds federalism and democratic governance as part of that basic structure.

S.R. Bommai (1994)

  • Clarified the scope of Article 356 and President’s Rule.
  • Strengthened the idea that elected state governments cannot be dismissed arbitrarily.
  • The current judgment builds on these principles.

Electoral Bonds Case vs. Tamil Nadu Verdict

  • Though the electoral bonds ruling was significant in curbing opaque funding, it failed to address consequences or penalise violations.
  • In contrast, the Tamil Nadu ruling provided immediate constitutional remedy and institutional reform.

No Absolute Veto: Limiting the Power of the Unelected

No Room for “Pocket Veto”

  • The Court explicitly ruled that Governors and the President do not possess:
    • Absolute veto
    • Indefinite delay (pocket veto)
  • These principles are vital in preventing arbitrary blocking of legislative will.

Judicial Review is Applicable

  • Actions (or inaction) of the Governor/President are subject to judicial scrutiny.
  • This upholds the constitutional principle that no authority is above the law.
  • It reaffirms democratic accountability of unelected offices.

Philosophical Undercurrent: A Return to Republican Values

The Irony of Postcolonial Governance

  • The idea that an unelected Governor could block laws indefinitely contrasts with the principle of people’s sovereignty.
  • Ironically, the British monarch has less power than the Indian Governor under past interpretations.

Founding Fathers’ Vision

  • India’s founders aimed for a Republic based on popular will, not executive fiat.
  • Unelected officials are custodians, not gatekeepers of democracy.

Implications for the Future

For Federal Relations

  • A significant step toward cooperative federalism.
  • States can now legislate without fear of arbitrary obstruction.
  • Encourages robust centre-state dialogue.

For Governance and Institutions

  • Enhances institutional accountability and integrity.
  • May influence the selection and training of Governors.
  • Likely to affect how bills are processed and tracked in legislative systems.

For the Citizenry

  • Reinforces the value of their vote.
  • Ensures that laws passed by their representatives are not discarded or delayed capriciously.

Conclusion: A Victory for All Citizens and States

  • The Supreme Court’s verdict is not just a win for Tamil Nadu, but for all Indian states and citizens.
  • It marks a return to constitutional morality, transparency, and democratic accountability.
  • As global tensions rise and federal structures are strained worldwide, this judgment charts a path for India to emerge as a model of democratic resilience.

Associated Article

https://universalinstitutions.com/federal-system/#:~:text=The%20framers%20of%20the%20Constitution,absent%20in%20the%20Indian%20Constitution.

Mains UPSC Question GS 2

The recent Supreme Court judgment in the Tamil Nadu Governor case is being hailed as a milestone in the evolution of Indian federalism. Discuss how this judgment reinforces the principle of parliamentary democracy, ensures accountability of constitutional authorities, and curbs central overreach into State affairs.(250 words).