Governors in some opposition-ruled states are maintaining payments pending for lengthy, violating constitutional spirit

Tamil Nadu governor RN Ravi walked into yet another controversy when he walked out of the Tamil Nadu assembly – the ‘provocation’ being a treasury resolution critiquing his deviations from the text of the speech written by the government. These speeches are always a party-government pamphlet. And while there are a small number of precedents for governors objecting in such cases, Ravi’s action was still arguably over-the-top. Even less gubernatorial were his official Pongal invites that described him as “Governor of Thamizhagam”. Thamizhagam, Ravi’s sudden brainwave, is not the state’s official name. All this is however in the realm of theatrics. The really substantive issue is the governor sitting on bills passed by the legislature.

Article 200 stipulates that a governor shall “declare” that he/she is giving assent to a bill or withholding consent. Governors can forward a bill to the President for consideration or return a bill with a message suggesting changes. But if the house passes the bill again, the governor has to give assent. So, Ravi and governors like Kerala’s Arif Mohammad Khan and Chhattisgarh’s Anasuya Uikey, who are also keeping bills pending without “declaring” their intent, are violating the constitutional spirit.

While the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that legislative power of governors is extremely limited and that governors are bound by the aid and advice of the cabinet, there is constitutional and judicial silence on how long a governor can keep a bill pending. But no Constitution can be expected to provide answers for every scenario cropping up and holders of constitutional positions must perform their duties with responsibility, avoiding reckless confrontation.

Anything allegedly unconstitutional in a law, like Tamil Nadu and Kerala’s attempts to remove the governor as chancellor of state universities or Chhattisgarh’s to provide 76% reservation, is for the judiciary to quash. The governor usurping the agency of the legislature and council of ministers and playing judge is simply not on. The breakdown of the governor-cabinet relationship in many opposition-ruled states is unfortunate. The governor is a key intermediary in the Centre-state relationship. The Constitution gives Parliament and the Union government the upper hand when laws of the state clash with those of the Centre. Maintaining this status quo doesn’t require governors to overplay their hand. Ravi, as ex-police and IB, must show more administrative wisdom.

END OF ARTICLE