18th April 2025 (12 Topics)
1
Apr
2
Apr
3
Apr
4
Apr
5
Apr
7
Apr
8
Apr
9
Apr
10
Apr
11
Apr
12
Apr
14
Apr
15
Apr
16
Apr
17
Apr
18
Apr
19
Apr
21
Apr
22
Apr
SC action on TN governor is not overreach
You must be logged in to get greater insights. click here to login
Context
The Supreme Court, in State of Tamil Nadu vs. Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025), held that the Governor’s prolonged inaction on state bills was unconstitutional. Using Article 142, the Court deemed the bills to have received assent, restoring federal balance but raising debates on constitutional accountability and judicial overreach.
Judicial Intervention and Constitutional Inaction
- Unequal Timelines – Contrasting Judicial Priorities: While the Supreme Court swiftly heard petitions against the Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025, it took five years to address the Governor's inaction on Tamil Nadu's pending bills from 2020.
- Federal Erosion – Impact of Governor’s Inaction: Failure to assent to state legislation undermines elected governments, dilutes legislative intent, and distorts the federal framework, especially when Centre and State are politically opposed.
- Legal Immunity – Challenges of Accountability: Governors enjoy constitutional immunity under Article 361; their inaction, being undocumented, often escapes judicial scrutiny, leaving states without legal recourse.
Article 142 and Judicial Remedy
- No Pocket Veto – Interpreting Articles 200 and 201: The Court clarified that the Constitution does not allow indefinite withholding of assent; inaction beyond a reasonable period violates constitutional responsibility.
- Extraordinary Remedy – Use of Article 142: Citing constitutional silence, the Supreme Court invoked Article 142 to do “complete justice,” deeming the bills assented, a first-of-its-kind intervention in legislative process.
- Rapid State Action – Tamil Nadu’s Response: Following the ruling, the Tamil Nadu government immediately notified the Acts, implementing the legislative intent delayed by the Governor's withholding of assent.
Accountability and Constitutional Implications
- Finding of Mala Fide – Governor’s Conduct Questioned: The Supreme Court held that the Governor acted without bona fides, disregarding Court directions and constitutional duties, severely breaching constitutional trust.
- Political vs Legal Accountability – Quo Warranto as Option: Though political calls for resignation have been made, legal accountability could be sought through a writ of quo warranto, challenging the Governor’s continuance.
- Subversion by Inaction – Growing Threat to Basic Structure: A trend of bypassing constitutional norms through inaction, rather than amendment, threatens constitutionalism and fuels calls to dismantle the Basic Structure doctrine and collegium system.
Courses
Study
Notes
Home
Resources
More
