Supreme Court on Governors

OF late, the Supreme Court has had to arbitrate between the governments and Governors of several non-BJP-ruled states, including Punjab and Tamil Nadu. Allegations of blatant politicisation of the high constitutional office and overreach have become commonplace. On November 10, the apex court ruled that the Governor cannot veto a Bill enacted by a legislative Assembly. The Governor, it maintained, was intended to be a constitutional statesman guiding the state government. Earlier, it had reminded the Governors that they are not elected representatives and have limited power over the legislative actions of the elected government.

On a petition by the Kerala Government, the SC disapproved of the Governor sitting for two years on Bills passed by the Assembly. It was contended that assent had been given to one Bill and seven had been reserved for the President’s consideration under Article 200 without assigning any reason. The Chief Justice of India hoped that political sagacity would prevail so that it would not be necessary to lay down guidelines on when the Governors can refer Bills to the President for assent. The SC Bench favoured the idea of a meeting between the Chief Minister and the Governor to sort out their differences.

Agreeing to the Kerala Government’s request to clarify the legal position on Governors referring Bills to the President, the apex court asked it to amend its plea. This should include a prayer seeking norms on dealing with Bills passed by the legislature in a time-bound manner. The court also asked the state government if the petition was meant to settle political scores or find a solution since it claimed that the delay in assent to Bills was hindering governance. The Governor-government conflicts are exacerbating Union-state tensions. The adversarial approach must end.

#BJP #Supreme Court #Tamil Nadu