Tamil Nadu Appeals to Supreme Court Over Governor’s Withholding of Assent
The Tamil Nadu government has petitioned the Supreme Court, contending that a Governor’s refusal to assent to a bill re-adopted by the State Assembly undermines democratic principles. The state emphasized that the Governor is constitutionally obligated to grant assent to such bills.
Governor’s Role in Legislative Process
According to Article 200 of the Indian Constitution, when a bill is presented to the Governor after being passed by the State Legislature, the Governor can:
- Grant assent, making it a law.
- Withhold assent.
- Return the bill (if not a money bill) with recommendations for reconsideration.
- Reserve the bill for the President’s consideration.
If the Legislature re-passes a bill returned by the Governor, the Governor is constitutionally required to grant assent.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court has previously expressed concern over delays by Governors in acting on bills. In a related case, the Court noted that a Governor cannot indefinitely withhold assent and must act promptly. The bench emphasized that withholding assent without timely communication can lead to governance issues.
Implications for State Governance
The Tamil Nadu government’s appeal highlights the tension between the executive and legislative branches at the state level. The outcome of this case could set a precedent, clarifying the extent of the Governor’s discretionary powers and ensuring that legislative processes are not unduly hindered.
As the Supreme Court deliberates, the case underscores the delicate balance of power within India’s federal structure and the importance of adhering to constitutional mandates to uphold democratic governance.
