"Governor Acting As A Political Rival": Tamil Nadu Government Moves Supreme Court Against Governor RN Ravi's Inaction In Assenting Bills

The Tamil Nadu Government has moved Supreme Court alleging that the Governor of the State of Tamil Nadu Dr RN Ravi has positioned himself as a "political rival" to the State Government and is obstructing the State Legislative Assembly's ability to carry out its duties by excessively delaying the consideration of bills that the Assembly has passed. Asserting that the Governor’s inactions have caused a "constitutional deadlock between the Constitutional Head of the State and the Elected Government of the State", the State has sought for a specified timeline by which the Governor shall dispose of all pending Bills, files, and Government orders forwarded by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly.

The State Government, through its petition, has also sought for a declaration that the Governor's inaction regarding the consideration and assent of the Bills passed and forwarded by the Tamil Nadu State Legislature to him and the non-consideration of files, Government orders and policies forwarded by the State Government for his signature is unconstitutional and a malafide exercise of power.

As per the petition, not only has the Governor kept multiple Bills pending, but he has also failed to accord sanction for prosecution and investigation of various crimes of corruption. Further, various applications for appointment of the Chairman and members of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission are still pending with the Governor. Due to the same, it has been alleged that the Commission which should consist of a Chairman and 14 Members is functioning with a mere strength of 4 Members in which one of the Members is holding an additional charge of Chairman as well. The petition submits–

"The Governor by not “signing remission orders, day to day files, appointment orders, approving recruitment orders, granting approval to prosecute Ministers, MLAs involved in corruption including transfer of investigation to CBI by Supreme Court, Bills passed by Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly” is bringing the entire administration to a grinding halt and creating adversarial attitude by not cooperating with the State administration."

Tamil Nadu Government has also prayed for the Supreme Court to stipulate the outer time limit for the Governor to consider Bills passed by the Legislature and sent for assent under Article 200 of the Constitution in light of the recommendations of the Sarkaria Commission. It has argued–

"The State Governor, who is the First Respondent in this case and was appointed by the Second Respondent Union in line with the Constitution, has positioned himself as a political rival to the legitimately elected Government by hindering and obstructing the Legislative Assembly's ability to carry out its legislative duties by unjustly and excessively delaying the consideration of bills that the Assembly has passed."

Adding that the Governor is "engaging in politically motivated conduct", the petition submits that by not acting upon his Constitutional functions, he is toying away with the citizen’s mandate. As per the petition–

"Wherever the Constitution requires the satisfaction of the President or the Governor for the exercise of any power or function by the President or the Governor, as the case may be, as for example in Articles 123, 213, 311(2) proviso (c), 317, 352(1), 356 and 360, the satisfaction required by the Constitution is not the personal satisfaction of the President or of the Governor but is the satisfaction of the President or of the Governor in the constitutional sense under the Cabinet system of Government. It is the satisfaction of the Council of Ministers on whose aid and advice the President or the Governor generally exercises all his powers and functions."

Accordingly, the petition argues that the assent of the Governor does not involve any element of discretion of the individual occupying the said post, rather, such assent should only be based on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. It adds that even though Article 200 of the Constitution, which gives the power to governors to grant assent/withhold assent, does not specifically fix any time limit for the Governor, it uses the phrases “shall declare” and “as soon as possible” indicating the urgency with which the Governor must act. 

As per the petition, "the refusal to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers or deliberate inaction in acting on the Bills or on the files on the part of the Governor including any delay, will defeat the parliamentary democracy and the will of the people and consequently violates the basic structure of the Constitution."

Asserting that even though the Governor occupies the position of the head of the executive of the State, he is a "titular head" and it is virtually the Council of Ministers in each state that carries on the executive government. Thus, his inaction has usurped the functions of the "true Legislature" of the State.

In April, while considering a similar petition filed by the State of Telangana against the Telangana Governor, the Supreme Court had observed that the Governors should return the bills "as soon as possible" in terms of Article 200.