The verdict in The State of Tamil Nadu vs The Governor of Tamil Nadu, which is the result of an enlightened intervention by the Supreme Court, will be remembered because of the iteration of two important principles. First, in a measure that saw the apex court invoking powers that it rarely uses, the court affixed a specific timeline for governors when it comes to giving or denying assent to bills passed by state legislatures. This, in fact, corrected a mild constitutional ambiguity. The Constitution mandates that governors should act “as soon as possible” in such matters but had restricted itself from specifying a time period. The country’s highest court has now plugged this gap by stating that a governor will have three months in the case of a bill that has been sent for reconsideration to the assembly or to the president; the period has been reduced to a month when the bill is sent back to the governor for assent by the assembly. This should put an end to the malpractice of governors sitting on bills for indefinite periods of time, something that R.N. Ravi, the governor of Tamil Nadu, had been doing with little regard to the fact that the Supreme Court had, in 2023, raised serious objections to the inertia exhibited by gubernatorial offices while responding to Punjab’s complaint against its governor. The second principle that has been underlined by this verdict is of equal importance. The Supreme Court has made it clear that the office of the governor cannot function as a parallel centre of power. Instead, it must honour the will of the people that is manifest through decisions taken by legislatures and elected governments.
The chief minister of Tamil Nadu, M.K. Stalin, has described the judgment as a victory for all states. Indeed, several states ruled by Opposition parties — West Bengal is among them — had to approach the court for relief because errant governors had chosen not to act on bills pertaining to crucial matters, be it the convening of assembly sessions or the appointments of vice-chancellors. The crux of the matter is the politicisation of the governor’s office. Central governments, whether of the Congress earlier or the Bharatiya Janata Party now, have usually perceived the governor’s post as a tool to impose their agenda on states. The Supreme Court’s stern response would hopefully discourage such mischief, which disrupts the republic’s charter of federalism.