Constitutional deadlock: SC expressed objection to Tamil Nadu Governor
Tamil Nadu government has filed a petition in the Supreme Court against the Governor
Constitutional deadlock: Tamil Nadu Government Governor R.N. Ravi Accused of creating a constitutional deadlock by delaying or refusing to consider 12 important bills passed by the state assembly.
In a major judgment, the Supreme Court on November 20 emphasized that the Governor does not have the discretion to withhold assent to bills when the state legislative assembly rejects them.
The court’s decision came in response to a petition filed by the Tamil Nadu government, including Governor R.N. Ravi was accused. Ravi is accused of creating a constitutional deadlock by delaying or refusing to consider 12 important bills passed by the state assembly.
Tamil Nadu government accuses Governor of creating constitutional deadlock by delaying consideration of bills passed by the state assemblyThis example is not the only one
The Tamil Nadu government’s complaint is not an isolated incident. Other non-BJP ruled states like Kerala and Punjab have also raised concerns about the over-reach of federally appointed governors. Kerala, in a separate petition, pointed out that its eight proposed laws have been pending with the Governor for years.
On the other hand, Punjab again alleged that the Governor is sitting on its seven payments since June. Notably, the Telangana Governor cleared the pending bills from September 2022 after the Supreme Court’s intervention in April.
The practice of governors withholding assent to bills dates back to the British colonial period. When they were appointed by Queen Elizabeth I to implement the policies of the English Empire rather than deal with the administrative problems of individual provinces.
This practice has continued extensively in post-independent India, where political parties use the post of Governor as a tool to establish control over states where they do not have a majority.
The Narendra Modi-led BJP government has been particularly adept at exploiting this power in non-BJP ruled states, creating constitutional gridlock that hinders the functioning of state legislatures. Examples include the appointment of Bhagat Singh Koshyari as Governor of Maharashtra, which led to the fall of the Uddhav Thackeray-led coalition government.
Appointment of Tathagata Roy as Governor of Tripura despite history of insensitive comments; And C.V. Anand Bose’s appointment as Governor of West Bengal, where he is currently sitting on 22 bills passed by Mamata Banerjee’s government.
In these cases, Governors have effectively become agents of the central government rather than neutral holders of the Constitution. Despite recommendations from commissions such as the Sarkaria Commission on the powers and appointments of governors, these issues have been largely ignored.
It is now up to the judiciary to protect India’s federal structure, ensure fair power-sharing, and give priority to the interests of the people, the true architects of democracy, over political parties.
