HPAS 2025 GS2 Question 11

HPAS 2025 Mains GS-2 Question 11

Critically examine the powers and position of Governors in the States in the light of the recent judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on the writ petition by the State of Tamil Nadu.

Solution:

The office of the Governor (Article 153-162) has often been a flashpoint in Indian federalism. Recently, the Supreme Court’s judgment in the State of Tamil Nadu vs. Governor (2023) has provided much-needed clarity on the limits of the Governor’s discretionary powers regarding legislative assent under Article 200.

1. The Core Conflict: Article 200

Article 200 outlines four options for a Governor when a Bill is passed by the State Legislature:

• Grant Assent.
• Withhold Assent.
• Reserve the Bill for the President’s consideration.
• Return the Bill (if it’s not a Money Bill) for reconsideration.

2. Key Insights from the Tamil Nadu Judgement

The Hon’ble Supreme Court addressed the “pocket veto” controversy and the binding nature of the First Proviso of Article 200:

• Assent cannot be withheld indefinitely: The Court emphasized the phrase “as soon as possible” in the proviso. Governors must return Bills they disagree with promptly, rather than sitting on them indefinitely.
• Mandatory Assent on Repassage: The Court ruled that if a Governor “withholds assent” and the House repasses the Bill (with or without amendments), the Governor must grant assent. Withholding assent is not a final veto but a trigger for the reconsideration process.
• Governor as a Constitutional Head: The Court reiterated that the Governor is a symbolic head and cannot act as a “parallel center of power” or stall the democratic will of the elected legislature.

3. Critical Examination of the Position

“The Governor cannot sit over a Bill… to do so would be to subvert the principles of parliamentary democracy.” — Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud.

• The Agent of the Centre: Critics argue that the Governor’s appointment by the President makes them susceptible to political interference, often leading to friction in states ruled by opposition parties.
• Constitutional Deadlock: Indefinite delays in signing Bills (e.g., related to university vice-chancellors or public service commissions) paralyze state administration.
• Discretion vs. Duty: While Article 163 mentions “discretion,” the Supreme Court has consistently held (from Shamsher Singh to Nabam Rebia) that this is limited and generally subservient to the Aid and Advice of the Council of Ministers.

4. Conclusion

The Tamil Nadu judgment reinforces that the Governor’s power to withhold assent is procedural rather than absolute. By making the “return and repass” mechanism mandatory, the Court has ensured that the Governor remains a “Sagacious Counselor” rather than an obstructive constitutional hurdle, thereby safeguarding the federal structure.

Concise Model Answer (150-Word Limit)

The recent Supreme Court judgment in State of Tamil Nadu vs. Governor (2023) has critically redefined the Governor’s role under Article 200. The Court clarified that the Governor cannot sit on Bills indefinitely, emphasizing that “withholding assent” must be followed by returning the Bill to the Legislature “as soon as possible.”

Key takeaways include:

1. No Absolute Veto: If the House repasses a Bill returned by the Governor, the First Proviso makes it mandatory for the Governor to grant assent.
2. Constitutional Propriety: The Governor, as a titular head, cannot thwart the legislative process of an elected government.
3. Accountability: The judgment eliminates the “pocket veto” concept, ensuring administrative continuity.

While the Governor remains a vital link between the Centre and State, the ruling underscores that their power is circumscribed by parliamentary democracy. The judgment prevents the misuse of discretionary powers and ensures that the Governor functions as a facilitator of the Constitution, not a parallel political authority.