Supreme Court outlines powers and timelines for governors in its landmark judgment

Emphasising that the governor must act with due deference to the settled conventions of parliamentary democracy, the Supreme Court, in its landmark judgment, outlined the powers and timeline for governors to decide on bills passed by state legislature.

The top court, in its 451-page ruling, stated that the president also does not enjoy absolute veto over bills passed by the state. The apex court also mentioned that the president must decide on bills within three months and states can approach courts if a decision is not taken within the prescribed time limit.

A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan said, “We are in no way undermining the office of the governor. All we say is that the governor must act with due deference to the settled conventions of parliamentary democracy; respecting the will of the people being expressed through the legislature as-well as the elected government responsible to the people.”

ALSO READ: Tamil Nadu governor vs state row: ‘President must decide on bills within 3 months', rules SC

“He must perform his role of a friend, philosopher and guide with dispassion, guided not by considerations of political expediency but by the sanctity of the constitutional oath he undertakes. In times of conflict, he must be the harbinger of consensus and resolution, lubricating the functioning of the state machinery by his sagacity, wisdom and not run it into a standstill,” the judgment stated.

The top court stressed that the governor must be the catalyst and not an inhibitor. All his actions must be impelled keeping in mind the dignity of the high constitutional office that he occupies.

ALSO READ: What next for K. Annamalai: Why the ex-IPS officer stepped down as Tamil Nadu BJP chief

Enumerating the governor’s duty towards the Constitution of India, the bench said, “The governor before he assumes office undertakes an oath to discharge his functions to the best of his ability in order to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and the rule of law, along with a vowing to devote himself to the service and well-being of the people of the state. Therefore, it is imperative that all his actions be guided in true allegiance to his oath and that he faithfully executes his functions that he is entrusted with by and under the Constitution.”

“There is a reason why a specific reference is made to the well-being of the people of the state in his oath, there is a reason why he is sworn in to pledge himself to the service of the same people; the governor as the constitutional head of the state is reposed with the responsibility to accord primacy to the will and welfare of the people of the state and earnestly work in harmony with the state machinery, as his oath not only makes this mandate anything but clear, but rather also demands it of the governor owing to the intimate and delicate nature of the functions that he performs and the potency of the ramifications that could ensue or be unleashed upon the State,” reads the judgment.

Advising the governors that they should not create roadblocks or chokehold the state legislature, the top court said, “The members of the state legislature having been elected by the people of the state as an outcome of the democratic expression are better attuned to ensure the wellbeing of the people of the state. Hence, any action contrary to the express choice of the people, in other words, the state legislature would be a renege of his constitutional oath.”

ALSO READ: Tamil Nadu DMK Min Ponmudy makes derogatory remarks on Shaivism-Vaishnavism, Stalin removes him from party post

The judgment went beyond resolving the immediate dispute, offering a profound reflection on the governor’s role.

For Tamil Nadu, the decision was a vindication of its legislative sovereignty, ensuring that bills addressing critical issues like education and governance could move forward. The Court’s directive to circulate the judgment to all High Courts and governors’ offices signals its intent to set a nationwide precedent.

The Supreme Court expressed hope that governors and state governments would work in tandem, prioritising public welfare. It described the Constitution as the soul of India, a bedrock of rights and responsibilities that demands unwavering fidelity from all authorities.

India