 |
|
The article details a significant constitutional standoff between the Tamil Nadu government, its Governor R.N. Ravi, and now, the President of India, Droupadi Murmu. The conflict revolves around the powers vested in the Governor's office, particularly concerning the assent to bills passed by the state legislature, and whether the judiciary can impose timelines on the Governor's actions. President Murmu's letter to the Supreme Court, seeking its opinion on several crucial constitutional questions, has further complicated the situation and sparked outrage from Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin, who accuses the BJP-led central government of attempting to undermine the authority of non-BJP state legislatures. At the heart of the matter lies the interpretation of Article 200 and Article 361 of the Indian Constitution. Article 200 deals with the Governor's power to assent to bills, reserve them for the President's consideration, or return them to the legislature for reconsideration. The Constitution does not prescribe a specific timeframe for the Governor to make a decision, leading to situations where bills remain pending for extended periods, effectively stalling the legislative process. Article 361, on the other hand, provides immunity to the President and Governors from being answerable to any court for the exercise of their official powers and duties. The core questions that President Murmu's letter poses to the Supreme Court directly challenge the recent Supreme Court ruling that mandated Governor Ravi to clear 10 pending bills within three months. The President's query regarding the justiciability of the Governor's discretionary powers under Article 200 seeks to clarify whether the judiciary can intervene in the exercise of these powers. Furthermore, the question regarding Article 361 as an absolute bar to judicial review aims to determine the extent to which the courts can scrutinize the Governor's actions related to bill assent. The absence of a constitutionally prescribed time limit for the Governor's actions has become a major point of contention. The Tamil Nadu government argues that the Governor's inaction effectively nullifies the legislative will of the elected representatives. They contend that the Governor is deliberately delaying assent to bills that are not aligned with the policies or ideology of the central government, thereby undermining the state's autonomy. Conversely, the Governor's office maintains that it is exercising its constitutional prerogative to carefully scrutinize the bills and seek clarifications where necessary. The Governor has expressed concerns about the content of certain bills, arguing that they may be unconstitutional or against the interests of the state. President Murmu's intervention has added a new layer of complexity to the already fraught relationship between the Tamil Nadu government and the Governor. Chief Minister Stalin's strong condemnation of the President's reference indicates the depth of the political divide. Stalin accuses the BJP of using the Governor's office as a tool to destabilize non-BJP state governments and of attempting to legitimize the Governor's obstructionist tactics through indefinite delays in bill assent. He views the President's reference as a deliberate attempt to subvert the Supreme Court's earlier ruling and to further erode the powers of state legislatures. The legal and constitutional implications of this situation are significant. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the Governor's broad discretionary powers, it could embolden Governors in other states to delay or withhold assent to bills passed by the state legislatures, potentially leading to further conflicts between state governments and Governors. On the other hand, if the Supreme Court affirms the judiciary's power to impose timelines on the Governor's actions, it could strengthen the autonomy of state legislatures and ensure that the will of the elected representatives is not unduly thwarted. The outcome of this legal battle will have far-reaching consequences for the balance of power between the central government and state governments, as well as the role of the Governor in the Indian federal structure.
The constitutional provisions at the core of the dispute – Articles 200 and 361 – have been interpreted and re-interpreted countless times since the inception of the Indian Republic. Article 200, concerning the Governor's powers with respect to bills passed by the state legislature, acts as a crucial link in the legislative process. However, the ambiguity surrounding the timeframe within which the Governor must act has become a source of considerable friction. The Sarkaria Commission, appointed in 1983 to examine the relationship and balance of power between central and state governments, recommended that the Governor should act on bills 'as soon as possible' and that the President, when a bill is reserved for presidential assent, should decide on the matter within four months. These recommendations, though not legally binding, underscore the importance of timely decision-making in the legislative process. The lack of a constitutionally prescribed timeframe creates a situation where the Governor can effectively veto legislation by simply delaying assent indefinitely. This power, in the hands of a Governor perceived as being aligned with the central government, can be used to frustrate the policies of a state government that is politically opposed to the ruling party at the center. The Governor's office acts as a bridge between the state and the central government. The Governor is appointed by the President, typically on the advice of the central government, and serves as the representative of the President in the state. This dual role can lead to tensions when the state government and the central government are controlled by different political parties. The Governor is constitutionally obligated to act impartially and to uphold the Constitution, but their appointment by the central government can create a perception of bias, particularly when the Governor is perceived as favoring the interests of the central government over those of the state government. The President's reference to the Supreme Court raises a fundamental question about the nature of federalism in India. Federalism is a system of government in which power is divided between a central authority and constituent political units. The Indian Constitution establishes a federal system with a strong central government, but it also recognizes the autonomy of the states in certain areas. The dispute between the Tamil Nadu government and the Governor highlights the tensions that can arise in a federal system when the powers of the central government and the state governments overlap or are not clearly defined. The President's questions to the Supreme Court implicitly challenge the scope of judicial review in matters involving the Governor's actions. The doctrine of judicial review is a cornerstone of the Indian Constitution, empowering the judiciary to review and invalidate laws or executive actions that violate the Constitution. However, Article 361 provides immunity to the President and Governors from being answerable to any court for the exercise of their official powers, which appears, on first glance, to limit the scope of judicial review in these matters. The Supreme Court has previously held that while Article 361 provides immunity from personal liability, it does not completely bar judicial review of the Governor's actions. The courts can examine whether the Governor's actions are constitutional and in accordance with the law. However, the precise extent of judicial review in these matters remains a subject of ongoing debate.
The Tamil Nadu government's decision to approach the Supreme Court initially to seek a directive for the Governor to assent to the pending bills underscores the limitations of other available remedies. While the state legislature can theoretically re-pass a bill that has been returned by the Governor, this process can be time-consuming and may not ultimately resolve the issue if the Governor continues to withhold assent. Furthermore, the political implications of repeatedly re-passing bills that are being blocked by the Governor can be significant. The state government may be perceived as being ineffective or unable to govern, which can undermine its political standing. The Supreme Court's intervention in this matter highlights its role as the ultimate arbiter of constitutional disputes. The Court has a responsibility to ensure that the Constitution is upheld and that the balance of power between the different branches of government is maintained. The Court's decision in this case will have implications not only for the relationship between the Tamil Nadu government and the Governor but also for the broader relationship between state governments and Governors across the country. The President's decision to seek the Supreme Court's opinion under Article 143(1) reflects the gravity of the situation. Article 143(1) allows the President to refer a question of law or fact to the Supreme Court for its opinion if the President believes that the question is of such a nature and of such public importance that it is expedient to obtain the Court's opinion. This provision is typically invoked in cases involving complex constitutional issues or matters of significant national importance. The fact that the President has chosen to invoke Article 143(1) in this case suggests that the government views the dispute between the Tamil Nadu government and the Governor as having far-reaching implications for the Indian constitutional system. The political context surrounding this dispute is also important to consider. Tamil Nadu is a state with a strong regional identity and a history of asserting its autonomy vis-Ã -vis the central government. The DMK, the ruling party in Tamil Nadu, has often been critical of the BJP-led central government and has accused it of attempting to impose its policies and ideology on the state. The Governor's actions in withholding assent to bills passed by the state legislature have been interpreted by some as being part of a broader effort by the central government to undermine the DMK government. Chief Minister Stalin's strong condemnation of the President's reference reflects the deep-seated political tensions between the state government and the central government. His call for all non-BJP states and party leaders to join the legal struggle to defend the Constitution suggests that he views this dispute as being part of a larger battle for the autonomy of state governments and against the perceived encroachment of the central government. The outcome of this legal and political battle will have significant consequences for the future of Indian federalism and the balance of power between the central government and the state governments. The Supreme Court's decision will provide important guidance on the scope of the Governor's powers and the extent of judicial review in matters involving the Governor's actions. It will also shape the political dynamics between the central government and state governments for years to come. As such, the developments in this case will be closely watched by constitutional experts, political analysts, and the general public alike.
Source: Why President Murmu's letter to the Supreme Court has upset Tamil Nadu