The Supreme Court ruled that Governors must promptly act on state Bills, reinforcing that they are bound by the advice of elected governments. This landmark judgment upholds federalism, curbs misuse of gubernatorial power, and ensures democratic governance by affirming that Governors cannot delay or obstruct laws without constitutional justification.
Copyright infringement not intended
The Supreme Court ruled that Governors cannot delay or block state laws.
The Supreme Court in the State of Tamil Nadu v/s The Governor of Tamil Nadu case said that Governors cannot block or delay laws passed by state legislatures. Their job is to follow the advice of the elected government, not act on their own.
The Governor of Tamil Nadu didn’t approve 12 laws passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly. Some of these laws have been waiting for approval since 2020. Instead of approving them, the Governor sent the laws to the President without consulting the state government. This created a huge conflict between the Governor and the state government.
The main question was: Can a Governor ignore or delay laws passed by the state legislature? The Supreme Court said no. Governors must act quickly and cannot block laws just because they don’t like them.
The Governor’s Job is Limited: The Governor is like a ceremonial figurehead, not a politician. Their main job is to follow the advice of the elected government (the Chief Minister and their cabinet). They can’t make decisions on their own unless the Constitution explicitly says so.
Three Options for Governors: When a Bill comes to the Governor, they have only three choices under Article 200 of the Constitution:
The Court clarified that the Governor cannot reject a Bill outright or sit on it forever.
Judicial Review Applies: Even though Article 361 gives Governors immunity from being sued personally, their actions are still subject to judicial review. If they abuse their power, the courts can step in and fix things.
Immediate Fix Using Article 142: Since the Governor had delayed approving the Bills for years, the Court used its special powers under Article 142 to say, “These Bills are now considered approved as of the day they were sent to the Governor.” This was an extraordinary step, but the Court felt it was necessary because the delays were unfair.
India is a federal country, meaning states have their own powers. The Supreme Court said that Governors are supposed to work with the state governments, not against them. Governors are appointed by the central government, but they’re meant to serve the state—not play politics.
The judgment makes it clear that no one, not even the Governor, is above the law. Elected governments represent the people, and their decisions should be respected unless there’s a strong legal reason to block them.
The Court criticized the Governor for misusing his position and warned others not to do the same. It emphasized that Governors are “constitutional sentinels”, not political players
The judgement will affect all states in India. Governors across the country now know they can’t delay or reject Bills without a valid reason. This strengthens federalism (the balance of power between the central government and the states) and ensures that elected governments can function properly.
Must Read Articles:
APPOINTMENT OF STATE GOVERNORS
Source:
|
PRACTICE QUESTION Q. Discuss the discretionary powers of the Governor under the Indian Constitution. How do these powers impact the functioning of federalism in India? 250 words |
© 2025 iasgyan. All right reserved
