NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court 's recent decision to clear 10 bills passed by Tamil Nadu assembly without the assent of state governor RN Ravi and the top court's move to fix timelines for all governors and President to act on bills passed by the states has been hailed as "historic" and "a victory for federalism" by several opposition parties amid reports that the Centre may file a review petition against the verdict.
The SC bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, without mincing words, said "where the governor reserves a bill for the consideration of the President and the President in turn withholds assent thereto then, it shall be open to the state government to assail such an action before this court".
Observing that a governor is required to abide by the aid and advice tendered by the council of ministers, the top court said it is not open for a governor to reserve a bill for the consideration of the President once it is presented to him in the second round, after having been returned to the House previously.
Further, what makes the verdict more significant is the court’s invocation of its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. This provision allows the Supreme Court to deliver "complete justice" in cases where no direct legal remedy may exist. And in this case, justice came in the form of a stern reminder: governors are not above the Constitution, and their role is not to act as gatekeepers for political interests.
The apex court also provided a resort to the state government and said that if a governor reserves a bill for the President’s consideration and the President subsequently withholds assent, the state government has the right to challenge that decision before the Supreme Court.
While the verdict has been welcomed by chief ministers of non-BJP ruled states, senior SC advocate Vivek Narayan Sharma argues that it might create "an imbalance in the federal structure if not tempered with constitutional discipline."
Speaking to TOI, he said, "The political turf war between states and governors, especially in opposition ruled territories, will persist. What has changed is the axis of power: the upper hand now tilts towards the States. While this strengthens state legislative autonomy, it may also create an imbalance in the federal structure if not tempered with constitutional discipline," when asked if the verdict would affect future tussles between governors and chief ministers of non-BJP ruled states.
Different-engine government vs double-engine government
The SC judgment comes as the Centre and several state governments, especially the ones not rightly aligned, have engaged in a power tussle over getting the bills cleared.
The opposition has accused the BJP-led central government of using governors in non-BJP ruled states as a weapon to create friction with the governments - be it in Kerala, West Bengal, Karnataka, Punjab or Tamil Nadu by delaying the passage of bills.
Tamil Nadu CM MK Stalin had remarked that the Centre was running a "parallel government" through governors adding that it was not "just against federal principles but also against the Indian Constitution. India is now witnessing cheap politics by governors, who are unfit to hold such high posts."
Last year, the top court had taken note of West Bengal and Kerala governments, both embroiled in prolonged standoffs with their respective governors over delayed assent to bills.
Kerala, led by the CPM’s Left Democratic Front, approached the court in March, arguing that its governor had wrongly referred seven bills—unrelated to Centre-state matters—to the President, leaving them pending for up to two years. The state claimed this move undermined the legislature’s authority.
Similarly, West Bengal, governed by the Trinamool Congress, alleged that its governor withheld assent on eight bills and hurriedly referred some to the President once the court hearing loomed.
In Punjab’s case, the SC had strongly cautioned then-governor Banwarilal Purohit, warning, “you are playing with fire.” The court voiced serious concern over the legislative deadlock in the state and took a tough stance on the governor’s failure to grant assent to bills passed by the state assembly.
A two-way battle?
And while the opposition ruled states are celebrating this verdict, there are instances when they have also opposed implementing Central legislations. Recently, Bengal CM Mamata Banerjee and Tamil Nadu CM MK Stalin denied to implement centrally-approved Waqf Act , Kerala government opposed the Citizenship Amendment Act, and Punjab government passed resolution against the now-repealed farm laws. Clearly, it is a tug of war, with both the Centre and the State calling their shots wherever they can. However, the Centre, with governors under their control, perhaps has more weapons in its armor.
Also, the state governments don't have the privilege to sit over bills as the governors do. Hence, the SC noted in the recent verdict that the governor must be the "harbinger of consensus and resolution, lubricating the functioning of the State machinery by his sagacity, wisdom and not run it into a standstill. He must be the catalyst and not an inhibitor. All his actions must be impelled keeping in mind the dignity of the high constitutional office that he occupies".
The verdict under question, however, "shifts the constitutional balance in favour of the states," Sharma said.
"This judgment undoubtedly shifts the constitutional balance in favour of the States. It diminishes the discretionary space traditionally accorded to governors—even in cases where the Constitution explicitly provides for it. While sometimes states may be right, and at other times the governor may be, "rightness" must always be judged through the lens of the Constitution—not individual ideologies or political agendas," he said when asked if the verdict would impact future tussles between the Centre and the states.
However, Parliament has the power to pass legislations to overturn SC judgements. Talking about such a possibility, Sharma said, "There is strong likelihood that the judgment would be reconsidered by a constitution bench of the Supreme Court and the directions and mandate of this judgment would be stayed till the decision by a larger bench. However, if for any reason, the above doesn’t happen, then the government should consider to amend the law to remove anomalies this judgment would bring in the executive and parliament domain."
The SC bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, without mincing words, said "where the governor reserves a bill for the consideration of the President and the President in turn withholds assent thereto then, it shall be open to the state government to assail such an action before this court".
Observing that a governor is required to abide by the aid and advice tendered by the council of ministers, the top court said it is not open for a governor to reserve a bill for the consideration of the President once it is presented to him in the second round, after having been returned to the House previously.
Further, what makes the verdict more significant is the court’s invocation of its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. This provision allows the Supreme Court to deliver "complete justice" in cases where no direct legal remedy may exist. And in this case, justice came in the form of a stern reminder: governors are not above the Constitution, and their role is not to act as gatekeepers for political interests.
The apex court also provided a resort to the state government and said that if a governor reserves a bill for the President’s consideration and the President subsequently withholds assent, the state government has the right to challenge that decision before the Supreme Court.
While the verdict has been welcomed by chief ministers of non-BJP ruled states, senior SC advocate Vivek Narayan Sharma argues that it might create "an imbalance in the federal structure if not tempered with constitutional discipline."
Speaking to TOI, he said, "The political turf war between states and governors, especially in opposition ruled territories, will persist. What has changed is the axis of power: the upper hand now tilts towards the States. While this strengthens state legislative autonomy, it may also create an imbalance in the federal structure if not tempered with constitutional discipline," when asked if the verdict would affect future tussles between governors and chief ministers of non-BJP ruled states.
Different-engine government vs double-engine government
The SC judgment comes as the Centre and several state governments, especially the ones not rightly aligned, have engaged in a power tussle over getting the bills cleared.
The opposition has accused the BJP-led central government of using governors in non-BJP ruled states as a weapon to create friction with the governments - be it in Kerala, West Bengal, Karnataka, Punjab or Tamil Nadu by delaying the passage of bills.
Tamil Nadu CM MK Stalin had remarked that the Centre was running a "parallel government" through governors adding that it was not "just against federal principles but also against the Indian Constitution. India is now witnessing cheap politics by governors, who are unfit to hold such high posts."
Last year, the top court had taken note of West Bengal and Kerala governments, both embroiled in prolonged standoffs with their respective governors over delayed assent to bills.
Kerala, led by the CPM’s Left Democratic Front, approached the court in March, arguing that its governor had wrongly referred seven bills—unrelated to Centre-state matters—to the President, leaving them pending for up to two years. The state claimed this move undermined the legislature’s authority.
Similarly, West Bengal, governed by the Trinamool Congress, alleged that its governor withheld assent on eight bills and hurriedly referred some to the President once the court hearing loomed.
In Punjab’s case, the SC had strongly cautioned then-governor Banwarilal Purohit, warning, “you are playing with fire.” The court voiced serious concern over the legislative deadlock in the state and took a tough stance on the governor’s failure to grant assent to bills passed by the state assembly.
A two-way battle?
And while the opposition ruled states are celebrating this verdict, there are instances when they have also opposed implementing Central legislations. Recently, Bengal CM Mamata Banerjee and Tamil Nadu CM MK Stalin denied to implement centrally-approved Waqf Act , Kerala government opposed the Citizenship Amendment Act, and Punjab government passed resolution against the now-repealed farm laws. Clearly, it is a tug of war, with both the Centre and the State calling their shots wherever they can. However, the Centre, with governors under their control, perhaps has more weapons in its armor.
Also, the state governments don't have the privilege to sit over bills as the governors do. Hence, the SC noted in the recent verdict that the governor must be the "harbinger of consensus and resolution, lubricating the functioning of the State machinery by his sagacity, wisdom and not run it into a standstill. He must be the catalyst and not an inhibitor. All his actions must be impelled keeping in mind the dignity of the high constitutional office that he occupies".
The verdict under question, however, "shifts the constitutional balance in favour of the states," Sharma said.
"This judgment undoubtedly shifts the constitutional balance in favour of the States. It diminishes the discretionary space traditionally accorded to governors—even in cases where the Constitution explicitly provides for it. While sometimes states may be right, and at other times the governor may be, "rightness" must always be judged through the lens of the Constitution—not individual ideologies or political agendas," he said when asked if the verdict would impact future tussles between the Centre and the states.
However, Parliament has the power to pass legislations to overturn SC judgements. Talking about such a possibility, Sharma said, "There is strong likelihood that the judgment would be reconsidered by a constitution bench of the Supreme Court and the directions and mandate of this judgment would be stayed till the decision by a larger bench. However, if for any reason, the above doesn’t happen, then the government should consider to amend the law to remove anomalies this judgment would bring in the executive and parliament domain."
You may also like
Tattoo addict gets adorable ink tribute to his late dog
Secret to living longer could be hidden inside very easy brisk walking exercises
Minecraft Movie on brink of box office history as Warner Bros bosses confirm sequel is coming 'imminently'
Pilgrims appeal to PM as 42k can't make it for Haj
1 killed, 2 hurt in gunfire over MP DJ music row
