Editorial: Ceremonial breakdown

CHENNAI: Political observers across the board have hailed the recent judgement of the Supreme Court that Governors cannot keep Bills pending indefinitely without any action. Senior Congress leader P Chidambaram also remarked that the apex court’s judgement asking  to decide on granting assent to bills passed by the state assembly was a stern “rebuke” to not only him but to all Governors. He called on Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi to read every line of the ruling.

It might be recalled that the Supreme Court had earlier pointed out that the unconstitutional deadlock created by Ravi by inexplicably delaying or even failing to consider and assent to 12 crucial Bills passed by the Assembly, as well as stymieing day-to-day governance in a manner that is threatening to bring the State administration to a grinding halt, was a serious concern.

Tamil Nadu had raised the issue of the Governor holding back files seeking sanction for protection of public servants in corruption cases, pleas for premature release of prisoners, and appointments to the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC). The advocates representing the State had pointed out that there was not a word from the Governor on these files or Bills that encompassed everything from public health to higher education.

The governments of Kerala and Punjab had approached the apex court seeking its intervention and decision on the roles and responsibilities of the Governor. In a writ petition filed by the Punjab government, it complained that Governor Purohit had held back crucial Bills on Sikh gurdwaras, the police, and higher education that were passed in a special sitting of the Budget Session of the Vidhan Sabha on June 19-20. In Kerala, there had been a long-drawn tussle between the LDF government and Governor Arif Mohammad Khan over the functioning of state-run universities, including appointment of vice-chancellors.

Governors had engaged in fence sitting vis-a-vis Bills passed by elected legislatures on account of a grey area in Article 200 of the Constitution, which endows them with the power to sign Bills into law. The Governor can either sign a Bill, return it to the legislature with a note of contention ‘as soon as possible’, or submit it to the President on specific matters. The absence of a quantifiable time frame led to this dilly-dallying. Some Governors, especially in States governed by parties opposed to the ruling dispensation at the Centre have resorted to sitting on the Bills for no rhyme or reason. Some of the Bills awaiting gubernatorial assent are two or more years old.

It must be noted that genuine power is vested with the elected representatives of the people in a parliamentary format of democracy. The Governor’s role is ceremonial at best – as an appointee of the President, he is the titular head of the State. The Governor acts on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, except for in specific areas where the Constitution has given him the discretion to act. The authority to take decisions affecting the governance of the State is entrusted to its elected arm. Also, only the judiciary has the power to assess the constitutionality of a Bill. Its desirability is to be decided by the electorate. For now, what seems to have been clarified is that in our representative democracy, there is no provision to endow Governors with veto rights.