What's New

Supreme Court Clarifies Governors’ Constitutional Limits, Upholds Federalism

Syllabus:

GS-2:

Judiciary , Indian Constitution , Constitutional Bodies , Role of Governor , Co-operative Federalism , Federalism , Centre-State Relations

Focus:

The Supreme Court, in a landmark April 2024 judgment, ruled against the Tamil Nadu Governor’s prolonged delay in granting assent to state bills. By setting clear timelines and striking down the myth of absolute discretion, the Court reaffirmed the primacy of elected legislatures and safeguarded federal democratic principles in governance.

Understanding the Role of Governors in the Indian Constitution:

Historical Vision vs. Present Reality

• Originally, the governor’s role was meant to be largely ceremonial—a figurehead who would act as a “sage on the sidelines”.
• Inspired by ideals of impartiality and wisdom, the governor was supposed to act on the aid and advice of the state government, much like the Queen in the British system.
• Unfortunately, India’s experience with governors has diverged from this vision, especially in recent times.

Partisan Appointments and Political Misuse

• Governors appointed by ruling parties at the Centre have often functioned more as political agents than constitutional authorities.
• Allegations include obstructing state governments run by Opposition parties, delaying or denying assent to bills, meddling in university appointments, and stalling legislative processes.
• The deterioration of Centre-State relations is more pronounced when different parties rule at the Centre and in the state.

The Supreme Court’s Intervention in the Tamil Nadu Case:

● Background of the Dispute

• The Tamil Nadu Governor delayed assent on 10 bills passed by the state legislature and eventually sent them to the President for reconsideration after long inaction.
• This action was challenged, and the Supreme Court gave a historic ruling in April 2024.

● Key Supreme Court Observations

• The Court clarified that Article 200 does not grant governors unfettered discretion.
• The myth of “absolute discretion” was scrapped. The governor must act within a reasonable time and for constitutional purposes.
• Article 142 was invoked to set timelines for assent, reconsideration, or reservation of bills—effectively ending prolonged delays.

● Outcome of the Judgment

• All 10 bills were deemed to have received assent from the date they were submitted to the governor.
• The court held that the governor’s conduct lacked bona fides and was contrary to constitutional norms.
• Even the President’s delayed response, taken only after court pressure, was viewed critically.

The Constitutional and Legal Framework for Governors:

● Constitutional Responsibilities

• Article 159 obligates the governor to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.
• Discretionary powers exist but are not absolute—they are bound by principles of reason, justice, and constitutionality.
• Governors are expected to act in consultation with the elected government, not in opposition to it.

● Ambedkar’s and Others’ Views

• B.R. Ambedkar clarified that the governor was merely a symbolic head with limited real power.
• He rejected the idea of electing governors as wasteful and unnecessary.
• Nehru and Rajendra Prasad believed governors should be eminent, apolitical personalities.
• Leaders like Jayaprakash Narayan, Sardar Patel, and T.T. Krishnamachari had various suggestions to limit the discretionary power or ensure state participation in appointments—none were implemented.

● Recommendations Ignored

• The Sarkaria Commission (1983) recommended consultation with state Chief Ministers in appointing governors.
• It also suggested safeguards for impartiality, such as a wider consultative mechanism involving the Vice President and the Lok Sabha Speaker.
• Successive central governments have ignored these recommendations.

Debunking the Myth of Absolute Discretion:

● Nature of Discretionary Powers

• Discretion does not mean arbitrary action. It implies choosing among lawful options based on fairness and logic.
• Discretion must be:
  • Applied with caution and reason.
  • Independent, not dictated.
  • Based on facts and constitutional context.
  • Free from malice, personal bias, or improper purposes.

● Global and Judicial Perspectives

• Justice William O. Douglas of the U.S. Supreme Court warned that absolute discretion is more dangerous to freedom than tyranny.
• Indian courts have repeatedly held that governors are not political employees of the Centre but high constitutional functionaries.
• The Supreme Court in Asif Hameed v. State of J&K (1989) emphasized that such discretion must be exercised in a manner consistent with constitutional morality and public good.

The Way Forward: Strengthening Federal Democracy

● Ensuring Constitutional Accountability

• Governors should not act as political instruments of the Centre, especially in a federal setup.
• They need security of tenure, similar to High Court judges, to ensure independence and integrity.
• The appointment process should involve broader consultation and transparency.

● Limiting Partisan Influence

• Political neutrality must be a criterion in the selection of governors.
• The central government must refrain from using governors as tools to destabilize opposition-led states.

● Institutional Reforms Needed

• Implement key recommendations of past commissions and expert panels.
• Set legislative deadlines and constitutional penalties for prolonged gubernatorial inaction.
• Train governors in constitutional values and responsibilities through mandatory orientation sessions.

Conclusion:

• The Supreme Court’s ruling in the Tamil Nadu case marks a watershed moment in asserting constitutional limits on gubernatorial powers.
• The judgment not only upholds the spirit of federalism and representative democracy but also ensures elected governments are not undermined by unelected figures.
• For India to function as a healthy democracy, governors must operate within the constitutional framework—not as political appointees serving partisan ends, but as impartial custodians of the Constitution.

Source: IE

Mains Practice Question :

The recent Supreme Court verdict on the Tamil Nadu Governor’s delay in bill assent has reignited the debate on the role of governors in Indian federalism. Critically examine the constitutional provisions governing governors and suggest reforms to ensure they act as impartial constitutional authorities, not political agents. (250 words)