Governor Ravi Vs Tamil Nadu Government, A Never Ending Battle Taken To SC

Heated debates are going on regarding the case filed in Supreme Court (SC) by the Tamil Nadu government to bring in a time limit for the Governor for the provision of assent to bills. While hearing the case, SC questioned the Governor's side regarding the delay in giving assent to the bills for more than 3 years.

This case escalated the ongoing Governor Vs Tamil Nadu government conflict into its final stage. Regarding the Governor's actions against the provisions of the Indian Constitution, senior journalist N. Ram gave an interview to a popular media.

N. Ram's interview:

The Supreme Court's questions to the Governor is a commendable act which serves as a wakeup call to all the Governors who acted against the Indian constitutional norms. Being a country which follows parliamentary democracy, the Constitution of India vested powers on the elected representatives of the people and not the Governor who is appointed by the Union government.

Many debates have occurred in the past regarding the powers of the Governor when the Constitution was tabled in the Constituent Assembly for approval. Particularly, T.T. Krishnamachari, a member of the Constituent Assembly clarified that the Governor can exercise his special powers only in certain situations.

If a Legislative Assembly passes a bill with majority and sends it to the Governor for assent, the Governor cannot keep it pending for an indefinite period. He can either return the bill to the legislature stating reasons for the return or he can reserve it for the consideration of the President in certain cases.

As per law, if the Governor did not provide reasons for return, then the bill can be sent back to the Governor without any changes. If the clauses of the bill violate certain provisions of the Constitution, then the Governor can reserve the bill for the consideration of the President after which the Governor does not have jurisdiction over the bill.

As evident from the powers vested by the Indian Constitution, the Governor does not enjoy Pocket Veto (The power to keep the bill pending for an indefinite period of time). The Tamil Nadu Governor keeping the bills on his desk for more than 3 years without taking any action is against the provisions of the Constitution and against the democratic functioning of the government.

The Tamil Nadu Governor's action invalidated the existence of the legislature (Assembly) and the election procedure which helped in selecting the representatives for the Assembly. His actions led to suspicions that the Governor has been adviced by the Union government to reject all the good schemes introduced by the DMK government and that the Union government is implementing its Hindutva politics hiding behind the Governor.

Even if the suspicions are true, the Governor wouldn't be criticised so much if he had done the job quietly. By doing things loud and open, he had amassed hatred from the people of Tamil Nadu.

One of the unacceptable actions of the Governor is pending the bill which suggested the appointment of Chief Minister as the Chancellor of universities instead of Governor. Since the bill is about the position of the Governor, he deliberately didn't act on the bill. As per Indian Constitution, the Governor doesn't have overriding powers when it comes to giving assent to the bills.

Usually before assuming office, the Governor takes oath as per Article 159 of the Constitution. While taking oath, the Governor pledges to protect the Constitution by all means; serve people without bias; be impartial etc. In this case, if the Governor has not given assent to the bills enacted by the representatives of people, then it means he has acted against his own oath.

There is no wrong in taking time to go through each clause of the bill thoroughly to make sure there are no violations in the bill but the time taken should be an acceptable one. It is not fair to take 3 years of time to take action on bills when a government itself runs only for 5 years. In this situation, it is imperative for SC to seek explanations from the Governor and clarify doubts in this regard.

Tamil Nadu Governor Ravi's delay in taking actions on the bills is a major concern which shows his irresponsibility and unaccountability to government machinery. Another concern about the Tamil Nadu Governor is his research about the name of the state.

The Tamil Nadu Governor claimed that it is not right to say Tamil Nadu, the right term is Tamizhagam. It is true that the state is referred as Tamizhagam in colloquial terms but in the government documents, the name is clearly given as Tamil Nadu which prevents further confusions regarding the name.

Similarly, Governor Ravi has rejected the proposal of the government to give honorary doctorate to Sankariah, who dropped out of American college to fight for the country's freedom. Due to matters like this, there is constant conflict between the Tamil Nadu Governor and the state government.

"The union government is also observing the problems between the Governor and the state government, because of which there is a great chance that the Governor might be called back soon. The arguments in the SC are also in favour of the state government. Therefore, it is unlikely for the Governor to continue his behaviour anymore", said N. Ram.