Background of the Case
- The Tamil Nadu Governor delayed action on 10 Bills passed by the State Legislative Assembly.
- He neither assented, returned, nor referred them to the President — effectively exercising a pocket veto (not envisaged in the Constitution).
- Upon the Supreme Court’s push, the Governor returned the Bills, and later referred them to the President after reconsideration.
Relevance : GS 2(Polity, Governance)
Key Issues Before the Supreme Court
- Can a Governor indefinitely delay assent on State Bills?
- Can a Governor return a Bill and then refer it to the President?
- What happens when constitutional silences are misused to delay democratic processes?
Supreme Court’s Core Observations
- Pocket Veto is Unconstitutional: The Constitution doesn’t allow indefinite inaction by a Governor.
- Sequence of Actions Invalid: Returning a Bill and referring it to the President isn’t allowed — it must be either/or, not both.
- Federalism Must Be Respected: The will of the State legislature — as an elected body — must be respected unless there is a constitutional reason to override it.
- President’s Role Limited: Assent can be withheld only for constitutionally valid reasons (e.g., conflict with Union law).
Prescribing Timelines (Controversial Move)
- The court laid down specific timelines for Governors and the President to act on Bills — despite the Constitution being silent on this.
- This was done to ensure no abuse of power through indefinite delays.
- Critics argue this is judicial overreach — creating new norms that ideally should be the Legislature’s domain.
Use of Article 142 – “Complete Justice”
- Supreme Court invoked Article 142 to deem the Bills as passed and thus enforceable as law.
- Tamil Nadu promptly notified and enforced the Acts the next day.
- Critics argue this bypassed the legislative process; defenders say it was the only recourse to uphold constitutional morality.
The Tension:
- The tension between a nominated Governor and elected State government is structurally embedded and unresolved.
Federalism and Democratic Principles
- The judgment reasserts the importance of:
- Cooperative Federalism — the Centre-State balance must be preserved.
- Legislative Sovereignty of States — elected Assemblies must not be undermined by unelected functionaries.
- Time-bound Governance — Constitutional processes cannot be stalled indefinitely.
Criticism & Concerns
- Judicial Overreach? Prescribing timelines and deeming Bills passed are arguably legislative functions.
- Sustainability Issues: Ad hoc judicial fixes can’t substitute for long-term institutional reforms.
- Potential Precedent: Will courts now routinely intervene in State-Governor stand-offs?
Verdict as a Temporary Fix
- Seen as a “band-aid” solution to deeper systemic flaws in India’s federal structure.
- Reinforces the urgent need for reform:
- Revisit the role of Governors.
- Introduce codified procedures and time limits in constitutional processes.
- Rebalance centralising features of the 1949 Constitution with modern federal realities.
Way Forward
- Legislative Reform: Codify timelines for gubernatorial and presidential assent.
- Rethink Governor’s Role: Time to reassess the utility and powers of the Governor in a matured democracy.
- Strengthen Federal Norms: Institutional mechanisms to resolve Centre-State frictions without judicial dependence.
