Deadlock in the State: Analysing the Constitutional Clash between the State of Tamil Nadu and its Governor

Headline:

Deadlock in the State: Analysing the Constitutional Clash between the State of Tamil Nadu and its Governor

To the Point:

The constitutional controversy revolves around the conduct of the Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi, especially with regard to:

1. Delay in Assent to Bills passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly.
2. Refusal to act on aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
3. Public statements undermining the state’s constitutional authority.
4. Withholding of crucial files, including on appointments and prosecutions.

These acts have invited allegations of “constitutional overreach” and ignited debates on the role of the Governor as a constitutional head rather than a political agent.

Abstract:

The confrontation between the Government of Tamil Nadu and its Governor epitomizes a deeper constitutional tussle over federalism, executive discretion, and democratic accountability. The friction largely arises from delays in assent to Bills, refusal to act on Cabinet advice, and public criticism of the state government by the Governor. This article delves into the constitutional scheme, judicial pronouncements, and the legality of gubernatorial conduct, with a focus on the Tamil Nadu crisis. It seeks to answer whether the Governor’s actions uphold constitutional morality or reflect a breach of federal etiquette.

The Proof: The Facts on Record

1. Pending Bills: Over 20 Bills passed by the Tamil Nadu Assembly were pending with the Governor as of late 2023, prompting the state government to move the Supreme Court under Article 32.
2. Interference in University Appointments: The Governor refused to accept the names recommended by the state government for university vice-chancellors.
3. Comments on ‘Tamizhagam’: Governor Ravi controversially suggested renaming Tamil Nadu to “Tamizhagam,” leading to a political outcry.
4. Withholding Assent: The Governor withheld assent or sat indefinitely on several Bills, including those related to the anti-NEET policy and other social welfare legislations.

Legal Jargon and Constitutional Framework

• Article 153 to 162 of the Constitution outlines the Governor’s role as the constitutional head of the state.
• Article 163(1) mandates that the Governor shall act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, except in matters where discretion is expressly provided.
• Article 200 empowers the Governor to assent, withhold, or reserve for the President’s consideration any Bill passed by the state legislature.

However, indefinite delay in exercising these options is neither envisaged nor permissible.

Case Laws Supporting Constitutional Boundaries

1. Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974) 2 SCC 831
   The Supreme Court held that the Governor is a nominal head and must act on the advice of the Council of Ministers except in limited discretionary areas.
2. Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker (2016) 8 SCC 1
   The Court categorically held that Article 163 does not vest arbitrary discretion in the Governor and that he is bound by ministerial advice in routine matters.
3. Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006) 2 SCC 1
   Any abuse of constitutional powers by the Governor invites judicial review. The judgment reiterated that constitutional functionaries must act within their designated limits.
4. State of Punjab v. Satya Pal (2024) – Pending before the Supreme Court
   Concerns a similar conflict between the Governor and the Punjab Government, drawing national attention to the constitutional role of Governors across India.

Conclusion: Need for Constitutional Discipline

The ongoing standoff in Tamil Nadu highlights the fragile balance in Indian federalism. The Governor’s inaction or overaction subverts the democratic mandate and undermines constitutional principles. The Governor is not an independent authority but a constitutional functionary, and must exercise functions in harmony with the elected government.

Judicial intervention appears inevitable, as such conflicts erode constitutional trust and cooperative federalism. A clear doctrinal line must be drawn to prevent the centralisation of power through gubernatorial offices.

FAQs

1. Can the Governor refuse assent to a Bill indefinitely?

No. While Article 200 allows withholding or reserving a Bill, the Constitution does not permit indefinite inaction. The Governor is expected to act within a reasonable time.

2. What remedies does a state government have against the Governor’s delay?

The state can approach the Supreme Court under Article 32 or High Court under Article 226 seeking a direction to the Governor to act on pending matters.

3. Is the Governor bound to act on the Cabinet’s advice?

Yes. Except in certain discretionary matters, the Governor is constitutionally bound to act on the advice of the Council of Ministers.

4. Can the President remove a Governor for such conduct?

Yes. Under Article 156, the Governor holds office at the pleasure of the President, meaning the Union Government can recommend removal, though this is a political decision.

5. Does this controversy affect federalism?

Absolutely. A proactive or obstructive Governor can destabilise federal equilibrium, as seen in Tamil Nadu, Punjab, and West Bengal in recent times.

By: Samriddha Ray. 3rd Year, St Xavier’s University,Kolkata