States Challenge Governors’ Authority: Tamil Nadu and Kerala Move Supreme Court

Context:

• This article is based on an Editorial “Action and authority: On Governors and implementation of decisions by elected regimes” which was published in the Hindu. Two states of India, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have approached the Supreme Court of India against the conduct of their Governors over using their authority to delay the implementation of decisions by elected regimes.

State Governors in India – Key Points

• Appointment: As per Article 153 of the Indian Constitution, there shall be a Governor for each State, who shall be appointed by the President of India by warrant under his/her hand and seal.
• Executive Head: The Governor is the executive head of the State like the President for the Union.

Governors’ Bill Assent – Powers of the Governor Under Article 200 

• Constitutional Authority: Article 200 of the Indian Constitution empowers Governors to promptly grant assent, withhold, or reserve bills for the President’s consideration. They may return non-money bills for legislative reconsideration.
• Immediate Action: As emphasized by the Supreme Court in response to a petition by the Telangana government, the phrase “as soon as possible” in Article 200 carries a constitutional imperative for swift bill evaluation.

Also Read: State Bills and the Veto Power of the Governor

Challenges

• Absence of a Time-Frame: This absence of time-frame for giving assent is misused by some Governors to delay and block the laws passed by the legislature. 
• Misconception as a Right to be Chancellor: Some Governors thought that they have a right to be chancellors and tend to delay assent to any Bill that reduces or removes their power. 

Governors as Chancellors of Universities

• Only a Practice: The idea of having Governors as ex-officio vice-chancellor of most universities is only a practice and is actualised through their founding statutes.
• Against Amendments: Some Governors appear to be hostile with the idea of amendments to university laws if they seek to leave out Chancellors, from the process of appointing vice-chancellors, or establishing new universities in which Governors are not chancellors. 
• Recommendation by Justice M.M. Punchhi Commission on Centre-State Relations: It is time to have a national prohibition on Governors being burdened with the role of chancellor of any university.

The Path Ahead

• Prudent Decision: States ought to be prudent in their decision-making without leaving scope for questions on the merit of their decisions. 
• Adequate Laws and Legislation: There should be clear and demarcated laws that prevent any scope of misconception or misuse of power.
  • For example, the absence of any laid-down process to seek applications and assess the relative merits of applicants before appointing the chairperson and the members of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission is an issue. 
• Collaboration: Governors are explicitly restricted in their functioning by the ‘aid and advice’ clause in the Constitution and ought not to misuse the discretionary powers available to them.
• Efficiency and Transparency: Both the elected and appointed officials are required to work with best of their efficiency in a transparent manner with a high moral and professional ethics to avoid such a conflict and achieve the desired result of serving best to the public.

Conclusion:

The ongoing legal challenge by Tamil Nadu and Kerala highlights the need for a judicious balance between the constitutional authority of State Governors and the imperative for efficient, transparent governance to prevent potential misuse of power and delays in decision implementation.

DOWNLOAD PDF