MK Stalin's "Scared" Swipe As Tamil Nadu Governor Clears 2 Bills

Nearly two months after a landmark Supreme Court verdict pulled him up for blocking Bills passed by the Assembly, Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi today cleared two Bills, a month after the House passed them. Chief Minister MK Stalin, whose government won a big victory in the top court in April, said the Governor's assent was "expected" and that he was "scared" the state government may approach the court again.

The two Bills pave the way for the nomination of persons with disabilities to urban and local bodies in Tamil Nadu. Aimed at social inclusion, the Bills will impact and empower over 12,000 persons with disabilities.

Chief Minister Stalin said the Governor's assent was the result 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 verdict, the Supreme Court had said the Governor's move to block 10 Bills was "illegal" and "arbitrary". The court had then used its special powers to clear the Bills. The DMK government welcomed the verdict, amid a larger debate on whether the Supreme Court can set a deadline for the President and Governors.

The ruling by the bench of Justice JD Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan said the Bills were passed by the Assembly twice and the Governor must have cleared them.

Article 200 of the Constitution lays down the options before the Governor when a Bill passed by the state House is presented before him. The Governor can give his assent, withhold assent, or reserve the Bill for consideration of the President. The Governor can send the Bill back to the House or Houses for reconsideration of some provisions. If the House passes it again, the Governor shall not withhold assent. The Governor can reserve for the President's consideration a Bill which he/she feels is at odds with the Constitution, directive principles of state policy, or is a matter of national importance.

In its April order, the court prescribed timelines to exercise these options and said missing them would invite judicial scrutiny of the Governor's action. The court earmarked a one-month deadline for Governors to withhold assent to a Bill and reserve it for the President's review with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. When a Bill is reserved without the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, this deadline will be three months. If a Bill is presented to a Governor after reconsideration by the state Assembly, he/she must clear it within a month. Any exercise of the Governor under Article 200, the court said, is amenable to judicial review.

The court clarified that it is "in no way undermining the Governor's powers". "All actions of the Governor must align with the principle of parliamentary democracy."

The Supreme Court's ruling effectively set a three-month deadline for Presidential assent to Bills, too. The court said the President's functions are amenable to judicial review under Article 201.

Amid a debate over whether the top court ruling amounted to judicial overreach, President Droupadi Murmu wrote to the Supreme Court last month and asked if timelines could be imposed on Governors.

President Murmu asked if a Governor's exercise of constitutional discretion is justiciable -- subject to a trial in court. She cited Article 361 of the Constitution, which says the President or the Governor shall not be answerable to any court for the exercise of the powers and duties of office.

"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?" President Murmu asked the Supreme Court, seeking its opinion on the matter.