Governor’s Powers EXPOSED: 5 Shocking Supreme Court Rules That Empower States!

The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a landmark judgment clarifying the limited role of Governors in state legislation. In the Tamil Nadu case, the Court ruled that Governors must act on Bills within a specific timeframe and are constitutionally bound to follow the advice of the state’s Council of Ministers. The Court rejected the concept of an indefinite or absolute veto under Article 200, stating that Governors cannot stall or delay the legislative process. If a Bill is returned and re-passed by the Assembly, the Governor is obligated to give assent unless there are substantive changes.

The verdict strongly reaffirms the principle of cooperative federalism and curtails the misuse of gubernatorial discretion. It has wide implications for states where similar delays in assent have caused tensions. The Court also emphasized accountability and transparency, aligning its ruling with earlier recommendations by key commissions. This decision is a significant step towards strengthening democratic governance and preventing political overreach in India’s federal structure.

Governor’s Powers EXPOSED: 5 Shocking Supreme Court Rules That Empower States!

In a landmark decision, India’s Supreme Court has redefined the role of Governors in handling bills passed by state legislatures. The ruling came after Tamil Nadu’s Governor was accused of delaying action on 10 bills passed by the state assembly. The verdict clarifies constitutional boundaries, emphasizing that Governors must act as neutral constitutional figures, not political decision-makers.

What Triggered the Case?

Tamil Nadu’s Governor withheld assent to several bills and later referred them to the President after the state assembly re-passed them. The state government argued this violated constitutional norms, as the Governor’s actions effectively stalled legislative work. The Supreme Court agreed, calling the Governor’s referral of re-passed bills to the President “legally incorrect” and highlighting the misuse of power under Article 200 of the Constitution.

Key Points from the Supreme Court Ruling

1. No Absolute Veto Power: The Court stressed that Governors cannot indefinitely block bills. Under Article 200, they have three options: assent, withhold assent, or return a bill (except money bills) for reconsideration. If a bill is re-passed by the assembly without changes, the Governor must approve it.
2. Time Limits Introduced: To prevent delays, the Court set deadlines:
   • Governors must decide on a bill within 1 month of receipt.
   • If withholding assent against cabinet advice, they must act within 3 months.
   • Re-submitted bills after reconsideration require a decision within 1 month.
3. Governors Bound by Cabinet Advice: The ruling reiterated that Governors must follow the elected state government’s advice. They are not independent authorities and cannot act based on personal or political preferences.

Why This Matters

The verdict reinforces constitutional principles, ensuring Governors function as ceremonial heads rather than political gatekeepers. It curbs misuse of power seen in states like Kerala, Punjab, and Telangana, where Governors have delayed bills or sparked conflicts with elected governments. The judgment also safeguards states’ legislative autonomy, a critical aspect of India’s federal structure.

Constitutional Framework for Governors

• Article 200: Governors may assent to bills, withhold assent, return them for reconsideration (except money bills), or reserve them for the President’s review if they clash with national interests.
• Article 201: If a bill is reserved for the President, only the President can approve or reject it.
• Article 207: Money bills require the Governor’s prior approval before introduction.

The Supreme Court, in the 2006 Rameshwar Prasad case, previously ruled that Governors’ decisions to withhold assent are subject to judicial review if arbitrary.

Persistent Issues with Governors

1. Political Bias: Governors are often seen as acting on behalf of the central government, undermining their neutrality.
2. Misuse of President’s Rule: In 2016, the Uttarakhand Governor recommended President’s Rule without testing the government’s majority in the assembly—a move later overturned by the courts.
3. Overstepping into State Affairs: Recent disputes in Delhi and West Bengal involved Governors interfering in university appointments and administrative matters.
4. Lack of Accountability: Governors are appointed by the President (effectively the central government) and cannot be removed by states, leading to unchecked authority.

Past Committees and Their Recommendations

• Sarkaria Commission (1988): Urged Governors to avoid political roles and consult state Chief Ministers during appointments.
• Venkatachaliah Commission (2002): Proposed appointing Governors through a committee including the PM, Home Minister, Lok Sabha Speaker, and state CM.
• Punchhi Commission (2010): Recommended a 6-month deadline for Presidents to decide on reserved bills and stricter rules for imposing President’s Rule.

Reforms Needed

1. Define Discretionary Powers: Article 163 grants Governors vague discretionary powers, which need clearer limits to prevent misuse.
2. State-Level Accountability: Allow state legislatures to impeach Governors for misconduct, balancing their current unaccountability to states.
3. Judicial Oversight: Create an independent body to review Governors’ actions regularly.
4. Prevent Arbitrary President’s Rule: Strengthen guidelines from the 1994 Bommai case, which mandated floor tests instead of unilateral dismissal of state governments.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s verdict is a significant step toward resolving tensions between state governments and Governors. By setting deadlines and clarifying constitutional roles, the judgment strengthens democratic principles and federalism. However, lasting reform requires amending ambiguous constitutional provisions and ensuring Governors act as impartial facilitators, not political tools. This decision sets a precedent for other states facing similar disputes, marking a win for legislative autonomy and accountable governance.