Strengthening Federalism - Supreme Court’s Landmark Judgment in Tamil Nadu Governor Case

Context:

• The Supreme Court judgment delivered on April 8 in State of Tamil Nadu vs The Governor of Tamil Nadu and Another, marks a golden day in the history of India.
• It marks a watershed moment in reinforcing the federal structure of the Constitution and limiting gubernatorial overreach.
• It upholds the principle that India is a “Union of States”, and that elected governments must not be subverted by unelected authorities.

Background - The Rise of Constitutional Ambiguities and Central Overreach:

• Vision vs operation of the Constitution:
  • Constitution envisioned as a visionary document, not a mere operational manual.
  • Over time, required interpretation and evolution through over 100 amendments and landmark SC judgments.
• Centralization since 2014:
  • Alleged centralization of power by the Union government, often via obstructive gubernatorial appointments.
  • States like Kerala and Punjab have taken governors to court over interference in Assembly proceedings.

The Tamil Nadu Case - Delay, Politics, and Legal Resolution:

• The Controversy:
  • 10 Bills, some dating back to 2020, were withheld indefinitely by the Tamil Nadu Governor.
  • Bills pertained to state universities, critical sectors post-COVID.
• Role of Current CM:
  • Re-passed all 10 bills verbatim, irrespective of the originating government (current or previous).
  • Strategic and principled move, recognizing the larger battle for federal integrity.

Legal Innovations and Doctrinal Advancements:

• Article 142 - Judicial innovation:
  • SC used Article 142 to deem the bills assented to from the date they were re-passed.
  • Asserted judicial intervention to protect the legislative process from executive obstruction.
• Exposing malafide conduct:
  • Governor returned bills at the last moment, attempting procedural manipulation.
  • SC declared the Governor's conduct as “lacking in bonafides”.
• Landmark cases referenced:
  • State of Punjab vs Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab (2023) - Real power lies with elected representatives.
  • Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala (1973) - Basic structure doctrine.
  • S.R. Bommai vs Union of India (1994) - Federalism and President’s rule.

Defining Limits - No Absolute or Pocket Veto:

• Clarity on Articles 200 (Assent to Bills) and 201 (President’s consideration of State Bills):
  • First-time establishment of clear time frames for gubernatorial and presidential actions on state bills.
  • Eliminates ambiguity, counters misuse of indefinite delays or silent rejection.
• No one above the law:
  • Neither President nor Governor has absolute veto or pocket veto.
  • Judicial review applicable to their actions—ensures accountability in a parliamentary democracy.

Conclusion:

Federalism as the Path Forward: The verdict is a victory for all states and citizens. It reinforces cooperative federalism, crucial in today's volatile global and economic climate, and calls for collegiality between States and Union for India’s progress.

Q1. What constitutional provisions govern the assent of State Bills by the Governor and President of India?

Ans. Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution lay down the procedure for the Governor's and President's assent to bills passed by State Legislatures.

Q2. Why is the Supreme Court's April 8, 2025 judgment in the Tamil Nadu Governor case considered a landmark in federalism?

Ans. The judgment limits the discretionary powers of Governors, reinforces legislative supremacy, and establishes time-bound action on state bills, thus strengthening cooperative federalism.

Q3. How did the Supreme Court use Article 142 in the Tamil Nadu Governor case?

Ans. The Court invoked Article 142 to deem the re-passed bills as having received assent from the date they were resubmitted, ensuring the continuity of legislative process.

Q4. What precedent did the Supreme Court reaffirm in the Tamil Nadu Governor case regarding the powers of the Governor?

Ans. The Court reaffirmed that Governors cannot indefinitely withhold assent to bills and that such actions are subject to judicial review, as earlier held in the Punjab Governor case (2023).

Q5. What is the broader significance of the judgment for Indian democracy and constitutional governance?

Ans. The verdict upholds the principle that no unelected authority can override the will of the elected legislature, thereby reinforcing the rule of law and democratic accountability. 

Source:IE