Inaction of Governor Over Bills: A Constitutional Conundrum

The recent petition filed by the Tamil Nadu Government against Governor R N Ravi in the Supreme Court sheds light on the constitutional impasse arising from the alleged delay in clearing bills. This blog dissects the constitutional provisions, critical analysis, and the need for reforms in handling gubernatorial discretion.

Constitutional Provisions and Petition: Under Article 200, the Governor has the authority to grant or withhold assent to bills passed by the State legislature. The petition filed under Article 32 seeks to declare the inaction and delay by the Governor as unconstitutional. It urges the court to direct the Governor to clear bills within a specified timeframe.

Critical Analysis: Omission, Views, and SC Verdict: The omission of the phrase 'in his discretion' from Section 75 of the Government of India Act, 1935, signifies a conscious choice in the Constitution's drafting. The Constituent Assembly emphasized that the Governor's discretionary power should not override the state government, except in specific situations. The Supreme Court, in Shamsher Singh v State of Punjab (1974), clarified that the Governor lacks executive powers and must act on the advice of the council of ministers.

Against Public Interest and Constitutional Spirit: The failure to act on bills that address urgent public needs contradicts the spirit of the Constitution. Governors abstaining from decisions indefinitely act against the constitutional framework, as highlighted by Dr B.R. Ambedkar during the constituent assembly debates. The inaction jeopardizes public interest and the constitutional mandate.

Conclusion and the Need for Reforms: While the constitution empowers the Governor to reserve a bill for the President's consideration, this discretionary power needs to be exercised judiciously. A parallel administration within the state, where the Governor acts against the council of ministers' advice, is detrimental. Urgent reforms, either through constitutional amendments or Supreme Court verdicts, are necessary to curb misuse of gubernatorial discretion and ensure timely decision-making.