Governor's Role in India’s Federal Structure

Table of contents

The recent Supreme Court verdict regarding Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi’s delay in granting assent to ten Bills passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly has reignited discussions about the Governor’s role in India’s federal structure.
The Court concluded that the Governor’s inaction and excessive delay violated constitutional morality and undermined federal principles. This important verdict strengthens cooperative federalism, reaffirms constitutional limits on gubernatorial discretion, and maintains the legislative independence of elected state governments.

Federalism in the Indian Context

India’s federalism is unique, merging a powerful central government with considerable autonomy for its states.
The Constitution of India outlines a quasi-federal structure with a unitary bias during emergencies. However, it also safeguards state powers under the Seventh Schedule and empowers elected state governments to legislate on matters in the State and Concurrent Lists.
The Governor, as a de jure constitutional head of the state, is expected to act on the advice of the Council of Ministers, except in situations where discretion is explicitly provided.

Constitutional Role of the Governor: A Balancing Act

The Governor’s role is defined in Part VI of the Constitution. Article 153 mandates the appointment of a Governor for each state, and Articles 154–162 elaborate on the executive powers of the post. The Governor’s legislative powers include:

Assenting to Bills (Article 200): The Governor can assent to the Bill, withhold assent, return the Bill (if not a Money Bill) for reconsideration or reserve the Bill for the President.
Reservation Power (Article 201): The Governor may reserve Bills that may be repugnant to central laws or affect national interest.
Discretionary Powers: He is generally bound by ministerial advice, but in specific situations (e.g., appointment of Chief Minister in a hung assembly), the Governor has discretionary authority.

The Tamil Nadu Case: Context and Verdict

In the Tamil Nadu case, Governor R.N. Ravi withheld or delayed action on 10 Bills, including key legislations related to state universities, local governance, welfare schemes, early prisoner releases, etc. Some Bills were held back for over two years. The Tamil Nadu government moved the Supreme Court, arguing that the Governor’s inaction violated constitutional mandates and obstructed the functioning of the legislature.

Key Supreme Court Rulings on the Governor’s Role under Article 200

Governor Must Act on Aid and Advice of Council of Ministers: The Governor is not an alternate power centre but a constitutional functionary bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, especially after the State Assembly re-enacts a bill.
No Scope for Political Obstruction or Discretionary Delay: The Governor must not delay or obstruct the legislative process for political gain. Such delays undermine parliamentary democracy & federalism.
Doctrine of Constitutional Trust Must Be Upheld: As a trustee of the Constitution, the Governor must act with neutrality and cannot misuse discretionary powers to subvert the will of the elected government.
Strict Timelines for Decision on Bills: The Court prescribed 1 month for assent or reservation (with CoM advice), 3 months to return a bill without CoM advice, and 1 month for assent after re-enactment. Delays beyond these timelines invite judicial scrutiny.
Reservation for President Only at First Stage: If a bill is to be reserved for the President’s assent, it must be done at the initial stage. Once returned and re-passed, the Governor must give assent and cannot reserve it again.

Implications of the Supreme Court Verdict: Enhancing Federalism

Curtailing Gubernatorial Overreach: It establishes clear limits on the Governor’s powers, preventing the use of reservation or delay as political tools. It is especially important in opposition-ruled states.
Empowering State Legislatures: The verdict reaffirms the primacy of elected assemblies in state law-making, ensuring that their decisions are not subject to arbitrary vetoes.
Judicial Enforcement of Federal Norms: The judiciary checks executive excesses and upholds the Constitution’s federal spirit. The verdict re-establishes the courts as guardians of cooperative federalism.
Encouraging Timely Governance: By demanding prompt action from the Governor, the verdict prevents administrative gridlock and promotes efficient governance.

Instances of Gubernatorial Discretion and Its Misuse

The Tamil Nadu case is not an isolated one. Historically, Governors have been accused of acting on behalf of the central government, especially when different parties govern the Centre and states. Examples include:

Arunachal Pradesh (2016): The Governor preponed the Assembly session, leading to a constitutional crisis and eventual dismissal of the state government.
Bihar (2005): The State’s governor recommended assembly dissolution despite no floor test being held.
Maharashtra (2019): The Governor’s early morning swearing-in of a minority government raised concerns about the misuse of discretionary powers.

Such actions have led the Sarkaria Commission, the Punchhi Commission, and multiple Supreme Court rulings to recommend codifying the role of Governors and ensuring they act impartially.

Judicial Trends in Safeguarding Federal Principles

The Indian judiciary has, over time, intervened to restore constitutional balance:

S.R. Bommai versus Union of India (1994): The Court restricted the arbitrary imposition of President’s Rule, stating that the majority of a government must be tested on the Assembly floor.
Nabam Rebia versus Deputy Speaker (2016): The Court held that Governors cannot act in their discretion to advance assembly sessions without the advice of the Council of Ministers.
Rameshwar Prasad versus Union of India (2006): The dissolution of the Bihar Assembly was held unconstitutional, reinforcing that Governors are not political actors.

The Tamil Nadu ruling continues the long-developed tradition of protecting the constitutional architecture and legislative autonomy.

Revisiting Recommendations of Commissions and Committees

Several constitutional commissions have deliberated on the role of Governors, which are:

Sarkaria Commission (1988): Governors should embody political neutrality and high integrity. It emphasises the need for consultation with the state Chief Minister before appointments.
Punchhi Commission (2010): It urged a fixed tenure for Governors to insulate them from political pressures. It also advised restricting discretion and advocated for clear guidelines for Bill reservation.
National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC): The Venkatachaliah Commission. It suggested that Articles 200 and 201 be amended to set a time limit for the Governor’s decision on Bills.

Despite the recommendations, successive governments have not implemented structural reforms, leaving room for judicial intervention as the primary remedy.

Criticism of the Supreme Court’s Verdict

The Supreme Court’s verdict is widely welcomed, but some critiques persist, which are:

Encroachment on Executive Domain: Some argue that the judiciary is overstepping into executive functions, undermining the separation of powers.
Vagueness in Timelines: The timeframes specified are confusing, leaving room for future ambiguity.
Central Appointments Remain: As long as Governors are centrally appointed without state consultation, political bias cannot be completely ruled out.

Nonetheless, the concerns are outweighed by the pressing need to maintain institutional checks and democratic accountability.

Federalism and the Governor: A Comparative Perspective

Globally, federal democracies manage centre-state relations with clearly codified roles for constitutional heads, which are:

United States: Governors are elected, ensuring alignment with the people’s mandate and reducing political interference from the federal government.
Australia: Governors act strictly as ceremonial heads under the advice of the Premier, with no independent discretion.

India’s model of an appointed Governor requires additional safeguards to prevent misuse of office. The Supreme Court verdict partially addresses the gap.

Way Forward: Institutional and Structural Reforms

Codify Gubernatorial Powers: Define limits to the Governor’s discretion under Articles 200 and 201 through legislation or constitutional amendment.
Mandate Timelines: Establish simple specific deadlines for gubernatorial action on Bills.
Transparent Appointment Process: Institutionalise a consultative mechanism between the Centre and states while appointing Governors.
Accountability Mechanisms: Introduce mechanisms for the state legislature to seek clarifications or explanations from the Governor on delays.
Promote Cooperative Federalism: Encourage Centre–State coordination platforms like the Inter-State Council, NITI Aayog, etc. to address political frictions.

The Supreme Court’s ruling on the Tamil Nadu Governor’s inaction emphasises that Governors are constitutional umpires bound by democratic norms, not political arbiters. It reaffirms that elected legislatures, rather than nominated heads, represent the people’s will in federal democracy.

For cooperative federalism to succeed, reforms and political consensus are required to redefine Governors’ roles from central leverage instruments to neutral facilitators. This is essential for achieving meaningful constitutional balance between the Centre and states.

Reference: Deccan Herald

PMF IAS Pathfinder for Mains – Question 146

Q. Critically examine the role of governors in the context of the Supreme Court of India’s verdict on Tamil Nadu governors’ handling of state legislation in India’s federal structure and the implications of judicial intervention in preserving the legislative autonomy of the state. (15 Marks) (250 Words)

Approach

Introduction: Explain the context of the Tamil Nadu Governor’s inaction on Bills and the Supreme Court’s intervention. Define key themes: constitutional federalism, legislative autonomy, and the Governor’s role.
Body: Explain the role and powers of the Governor in the Constitution, referencing the Supreme Court of India’s decision on the Tamil Nadu Governor. Discuss the implications of judicial intervention on the legislative autonomy of the state.
Conclusion: Reaffirm the judgment’s importance for federalism and emphasise systemic reforms to harmonise Centre-State relations.