By Sanjay Raman Sinha
The recent standoff between Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin and governor RN Ravi has found resonance in other states as well. Stalin had passed a resolution in the state assembly appealing to the centre to set a timeframe in which the governor should clear files of the state government. Later, he shot off letters to chief ministers of neighbouring states to do the same. In reply to his missive, Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan wrote back to Stalin welcoming his proposal and saying he will consider it. This has set the ball rolling for an extended conflict in the southern states between the two statutory posts.
The conflict between the state government and the governor has been a sore point in the executive-gubernatorial relationship. Almost every state has seen the raucous relationship unfold. Sometime back, Telangana had simmered on the subject. Ten bills were passed by the state legislature, but the state governor delayed giving her assent to the bills. The government then moved the Supreme Court levelling charges of “inaction and omission” against the governor.
On April 24 this year, the Supreme Court took note of the fact that governors were delaying their approval to bills passed by state legislatures. The apex court urged governors to keep the constitutional mandate in mind which dutybounds them to clear bills “as soon as possible”(State of Telangana vs Secretary to her Excellency the Hon’ble Governor for the State of Telangana and Anr). A bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha held that the idea behind the words “as soon as possible” in Article 200(1) of the Constitution is crucial and must be kept in mind by constitutional authorities. The Article specifies:
“When a Bill has been passed by the Legislative Assembly of a State or, in the case of a State having a Legislative Council, has been passed by both Houses of the Legislature of the State, it shall be presented to the Governor and the Governor shall declare either that he assents to the Bill or that he withholds assent therefrom or that he reserves the Bill for the consideration of the President: Provided that the Governor may, as soon as possible after the presentation to him of the Bill for assent…”
“..as soon as possible…” is the operative phrase. Since no time limit is enjoined in the provision, it is open to political machinations. The governor can withhold the bill as long as he wants.
According to Article 200, when a bill passed by the legislature of a state is presented to the governor, he has four options—he can give his assent to the bill; he can withhold assent to the bill; he can reserve the bill for consideration of the president; and he can return the bill to the legislature for reconsideration. The option of withholding the bill gets a large leeway by the rider.
The Supreme court has held that the governor’s power to reserve the bill for consideration of the president cannot be questioned in court. Hence, the governor may use his discretion by reserving a particular bill for the consideration of the president. There is no time limit for sending the bill to the president. This often is used to keep the government on tenterhooks.
A 2022 Kerala High Court judgment held that as per Article 200, the governor had discretionary powers to hold or give assent to a bill and that he was not bound by the advice of the council of ministers. The Court added “that it cannot fix a time limit for the Governor”, implying that Article 200 falls under the discretionary powers of the governor.
The Bombay High Court has given a judgment on the same matter i.e. the governor’s discretionary powers, and Article 163(1). The High Court held that the governor has to “either accept or return recommendations as made by cabinet.” The Court also stressed for a “reasonable” time limit for the governor to act on a recommendation. Clearly, governor’s discretion is a grey area with two High Courts giving differing verdicts.
In fact after the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, ministerial advice was made binding on the president. The governor is free from such binding advice.
Article 163 says that the governor must act as per the advice of the council of ministers, but “except in so far as he is by or under this Constitution required to exercise his functions or any of them in his discretion.” This exemption separates him from the president, who doesn’t have a similar discretion to ignore the decision of the Union cabinet.
However, this discretionary power has led to the unseating of democratically-elected governments. Apart from being an executive and administrative head of the state, the governor’s post is also constitutional. But since invariably the governor is handpicked by the ruling party at the centre, he is seen as an agent of the party. The partisan actions of governors have always underlined this unsaid nexus. This way, the Constitution has been waylaid, and instead of being watchdog of the Constitution, the governors have been made political pawns of the centre.
With the emergence of regional parties, the politicization of governors’ role has touched a new low. It has also made states wary of the ruling party. In the process, the centre-state relationship has suffered.
Of late, three southern states have become the hotbed of centre-state conflict, with the governor being viewed as a proxy of the centre. Kerala, Telangana and Tamil Nadu have seen a spate of protests by ruling parties. The governors, unmindful of the notoriety they are generating, have gone their usual ways. Telangana and Tamil Nadu will go to polls in the near future and Kerala is witnessing hectic campaigning by the BJP.
In such a scenario, the governor’s role is viewed with trepidation and suspicion. The scenario in north India and the Hindi belt is not rosy either. The Delhi government of Arvind Kejriwal has no love lost with Lt. Governor Vinai Kumar Saxena. The skirmishes between them are a daily staple.
Judicial pronouncements and constitutional grey areas apart, the governorship is a constitutional post, and its incumbents are expected to abide by constitutional ethics rather than dictates of petty politics.