POLITICS OF GOVERNORS

THE COUNTRY'S TOP COURT SETS A TIMELINE FOR THE PROCESSING OF STATE GOVERNMENT BILLS TO PREVENT GOVERNORS FROM STALLING LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS INDEFINITELY

- By KAUSHIK DEKA / Illustration by NILANJAN DAS

On April 8, when the Supreme Court delivered a landmark verdict in Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu, it once again laid bare fundamental questions about India's federal structure, the limits of gubernatorial discretion and who ultimately decides when a constitutional office has overstepped its bounds. The apex court invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, which equip it to pass a decree or order to “do complete justice”. Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar, whose stint as governor in West Bengal regularly pitted him against Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, promptly denounced Article 142 as a “nuclear missile against democratic forces”.

The case in Tamil Nadu related to the 10 bills that had been pending with Governor R.N. Ravi since 2022. In asweeping 415-page judgment, the court declared these “deemed to have been assented to”. Passed by the Tamil Nadu assembly, the governor had withheld them—neither granting assent, returning them for reconsideration, nor forwarding them to the President—amounting, in effect, to a “pocket veto”. An earlier intervention by the apex court had seen Ravi sending the bills back for reconsideration. When the assembly resubmitted the bills, the governor referred them to the President. At the time of the judgment, the President had given assent to one of the 10 bills, withheld assent to seven, and had yet to decide on the remaining two.