Tamil Nadu Governor cleared two Bills enabling nomination of persons with disabilities to local bodies, benefiting over 12,000 people. Reacting to the move, MK Stalin said, “He is afraid of the Supreme Court,” targeting the Governor.
Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi has approved two important Bills that will help people with disabilities get nominated to urban and local bodies in the state. These Bills, which focus on social inclusion, are expected to benefit over 12,000 persons with disabilities across Tamil Nadu.
After the Governor gave his assent, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M K Stalin strongly reacted.
He said the Governor had cleared the Bills because he was worried about the Supreme Court’s recent observations.
Stalin stated,
“The Governor has cleared two Bills after being scared by the Supreme Court observations.”
Chief Minister Stalin also reminded everyone that the two Bills had been passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly more than a year ago.
He said,
“The Bills were passed in the Tamil Nadu Assembly more than a year ago. Why did the Governor not give his assent? He did so now because he is afraid of the Supreme Court. He was forced to act by the court.”
Chief Minister M.K. Stalin, whose government achieved a major victory in the Supreme Court in April, remarked that the Governor’s approval was expected and expressed concern that the state government might approach the court again.
The two Bills facilitate the nomination of persons with disabilities to urban and local bodies in Tamil Nadu. Designed to promote social inclusion, these Bills will benefit over 12,000 individuals with disabilities.
Chief Minister Stalin stated that the Governor’s assent was a direct consequence of the Supreme Court ruling,
“This assent was expected. The Governor would be scared that we would move the court again.”
In its April 8 decision, the Supreme Court deemed the Governor’s action to block ten Bills as “illegal” and “arbitrary.” The court then utilized its special powers to clear the Bills. The DMK government welcomed the ruling, although it sparked a broader discussion about whether the Supreme Court can impose a deadline on the President and Governors.
The judgment, delivered by a bench of Justices J.D. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, stated that the Bills had been passed by the Assembly twice, and the Governor should have approved them.
Article 200 of the Constitution outlines the options available to the Governor when a Bill passed by the state Assembly is presented to him. The Governor can grant assent, withhold assent, or reserve the Bill for the President’s consideration.
The Governor may also return the Bill to the Assembly for reconsideration of specific provisions. If the Assembly passes it again, the Governor cannot withhold assent.
Furthermore, the Governor can reserve a Bill for the President if he/she believes it conflicts with the Constitution, the directive principles of state policy, or pertains to a matter of national importance.
In its April ruling, the court established specific timelines for exercising certain options, warning that failing to adhere to these timelines could lead to judicial scrutiny of the Governor’s actions. Governors were given a one-month period to either withhold assent to a Bill or reserve it for the President’s review, in consultation with the Council of Ministers. If a Bill is reserved without this consultation, the deadline extends to three months.
Additionally, if a Bill is presented to a Governor after being reconsidered by the state Assembly, it must be approved within a month. The court asserted that any actions taken by the Governor under Article 200 are subject to judicial review.
The court emphasized that it is “in no way undermining the Governor’s powers.”
It insisted that,
“All actions of the Governor must align with the principle of parliamentary democracy.”
The Supreme Court’s decision also imposed a three-month deadline for the President to grant assent to Bills, indicating that the President’s actions are also subject to judicial review under Article 201.
In light of ongoing discussions regarding whether this ruling constitutes judicial overreach, President Droupadi Murmu reached out to the Supreme Court last month to inquire about the possibility of setting timelines for Governors.
President Murmu questioned whether the constitutional discretion exercised by a Governor is justiciable meaning it can be reviewed by a court. She referenced Article 361 of the Constitution, which states that the President or Governor cannot be held accountable in court for the exercise of their powers and duties.
President Murmu asked the Supreme Court, seeking clarification on this issue,
“In the absence of a constitutionally-prescribed timeline and the manner of exercise of powers by the President, can timelines be imposed and the manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of discretion by the President under Article 201 of the Constitution of India?”