The Supreme Court has said it is not undermining the office of the governor in fixing a timeline for their actions under Article 200 but they must act with due deference to the settled conventions of parliamentary democracy. A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan which was critical of the act of Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi sitting over bills passed by the legislative assembly without any action, held that governors act according to Article 200 of the Constitution in a time-bound manner in a period ranging from one to three months.
Article 200 empowers the governor to give assent to the bills presented to him, withhold the assent or to reserve it for the consideration of the president
The bench said, “We are in no way undermining the office of the Governor. All we say is that the Governor must act with due deference to the settled conventions of parliamentary democracy; respecting the will of the people being expressed through the legislature as-well as the elected government responsible to the people. He must perform his role of a friend, philosopher and guide with dispassion, guided not by considerations of political expediency but by the sanctity of the constitutional oath he undertakes.”
The bench, in its 415-page long verdict though pronounced on April 8 but uploaded on Friday night, said in times of conflict, the governor must be the “harbinger of consensus and resolution, lubricating the functioning of the State machinery by his sagacity, wisdom and not run it into a standstill. He must be the catalyst and not an inhibitor. All his actions must be impelled keeping in mind the dignity of the high constitutional office that he occupies”.
Justice Pardiwala, who penned the verdict on behalf of the bench, said the Governor before he assumes office undertakes an oath to discharge his functions to the best of his ability in order to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and the rule of law, along with avowing to devote himself to the service and well-being of the people of the state.
“Therefore, it is imperative that all his actions be guided in true allegiance to his oath and that he faithfully executes his functions that he is entrusted with by and under the Constitution,” the bench said.
It said the Governor as the constitutional head of the state is reposed with the responsibility to accord primacy to the will and welfare of the people and earnestly work in harmony with the State machinery.
“Due to this, the Governor must be conscious to not create roadblocks or chokehold the state legislature in order to thwart and trade the will of the people for political edge. The members of the state legislature having been elected by the people of the State as an outcome of the democratic expression are better attuned to ensure the wellbeing of the people of the State. Hence, any action contrary to the express choice of the people, in other words, the state legislature would be a renege of his constitutional oath,” it said.
The top court also observed that constitutional authorities occupying high offices must be guided by the values of the Constitution and these values that are so cherished by the people of India are a result of years of struggle and sacrifice of our forefathers.
“When called upon to take decisions, such authorities must not give in to ephemeral political considerations but rather be guided by the spirit that underlies the Constitution. They must look within and reflect whether their actions are informed by their constitutional oath and if the course of action adopted by them furthers the ideals enshrined in the Constitution,” the bench said.
It added that if the authorities attempt to deliberately bypass the constitutional mandate, they are tinkering with the very ideals revered by its people upon which this country has been built.
“We hope and trust that the Governor and the state government would work in tandem and harmoniously keeping the interests and well-being of the people as their paramount consideration,” it said.
The bench further said, “In the last, we may say with the utmost responsibility and all the humility at our command that it is only when the constitutional functionaries exercise their powers by and under the Constitution that they show deference to the people of India who have given the Constitution to themselves.”
On April 8, the top court set aside the reservation of the 10 bills for the president’s consideration in the second round holding it as illegal, erroneous in law.
For the first time, the top court has also prescribed that the President should decide on the bills reserved for her consideration by the governor within a period of three months from the date on which such reference is received.
The top court exercised its plenary power under Article 142 of the Constitution to make the bill re-presented to the Tamil Nadu governor, as deemed to have been passed.
The delay in giving assent by the governor prompted the state government to move the top court in 2023, claiming 12 bills, including one from 2020, were pending with him.
On November 13, 2023, the governor declared he was withholding assent to 10 bills following which the legislative assembly convened a special session and re-enacted the very same bills on November 18, 2023.
Later, some of the bills were reserved for the president’s consideration.
