What can change for Tamil Nadu due to Supreme Court's guideline for governors?

Tamil Nadu CM M K Stalin had written to his eight counterparts in non-Bharatiya Janata Party ruled states, urging them to oppose the Presidential Reference sought by the Union before the Supreme Court.

The Tamil Nadu government suffered a setback with the Supreme Court on Thursday upholding that timelines cannot be fixed for the governor for giving assent to bills passed by assembly.

Calling such directions unconstitutional, a five-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha, and AS Chandurkar pronounced its verdict.

The court addressed 14 specific questions of law referred to the court by President Droupadi Murmu. She raised these questions following the two-judge bench's verdict in the Tamil Nadu Governor case that effectively set a deadline for the President and governors to clear bills passed by the legislature.

The bench said it cannot set timelines for the President or the Governor to act on bills under Articles 200 and 201. According to the bench, the Constitution deliberately leaves the assent process flexible, and judicially imposing deadlines violates the doctrine of separation of powers.

Why is the verdict a blow to Tamil Nadu?

The bench also held that courts cannot grant deemed assent to bills pending before a governor. It said the two-judge bench’s use of Article 142 to grant deemed assent to 10 Tamil Nadu bills was beyond its authority. According to the court, it cannot assume or override the constitutional powers vested in governors and the President.

The bench also clarified that governors cannot indefinitely withhold assent to bills.

With this ruling, the Centre can now say that the April verdict can be set aside since the top court observed that the President and Governors are not bound by timelines when clearing laws passed by states - means the April verdict can be set aside.

Relation with Tamil Nadu case

A Supreme Court bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan used its special powers under Article 142 to intervene in a standoff between the DMK-led Tamil Nadu government and Governor RN Ravi.

The Governor had stalled the approval of 10 Bills, which the court said was “illegal and arbitrary.” The court termed withholding of the bills “illegal" and "liable to be set aside". The bench criticised the "pocket veto" used by Governor Ravi to delay the Bills.

This exchange between the executive, the judiciary, and the legislature raised concerns about the separation of powers in India.

Tamil Nadu chief minister M K Stalin wrote to his eight counterparts in non-Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) ruled states, urging them to oppose the Presidential Reference sought by the Union before the Supreme Court.