SUPREME COURT RULING ON T.N. GOVERNOR

UPSC Relevance

• GS-2: Polity & Governance – Governor’s Role, Separation of Powers, Constitutional Interpretation
• GS-2: Federalism – Centre-State Dynamics, Legislative Processes

Key Points: Addressing Constitutional Silence

• The Supreme Court ruled that Governors must decide on Bills within 3 months, ending the practice of indefinite delays.
• This addresses a Constitutional gap in Article 200, which lacks a time limit for Governors’ actions.

Context & Legal Perspective

• Arises from tensions between Governors and elected state governments in states like West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Punjab, and Kerala.
• Tamil Nadu’s Governor faced accusations of political bias and delays, especially in referring Bills to the President.

Judgment Details (April 8)

• Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan declared delays beyond 3 months unconstitutional.
• Builds on a 2023 Punjab ruling emphasizing that elected representatives hold real power.
• Warns that Governors’ inaction or delays are subject to judicial review.

Wider Implications

• The Court also suggested setting time limits for Speakers in anti-defection cases (Tenth Schedule), referencing the 2020 Keisham Meghachandra Singh ruling.
• Strengthens institutional checks to prevent misuse of constitutional roles.

Analysis & Path Forward

• The ruling enhances democratic accountability and curbs misuse of Governors’ discretionary powers.
• Recommendations include codifying roles for constitutional authorities and enforcing statutory timelines.