NEW DELHI: Justifying its decision to invoke extraordinary power granted under Article 142 of the constitution by declaring ten Bills passed by Tamil Nadu assembly to be deemed to have been assented by the Governor instead of sending the matter back to him to take a decision, Supreme Court has said the Governor was lacking in "bonafides" and it was difficult for us to repose our trust and remand the matter to the him.
Questioning the conduct of the Governor who has been at loggerheads with the state govt on various issues, a bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said that the constitutional head of Tamil Nadu state "failed in showing due deference and respect to its judgments and directions".
"Having regard to the unduly long period of time for which these Bills were kept pending by the Governor before the ultimate declaration of withholding of assent and in view of the scant respect shown by the Governor to the decision of this Court in State of Punjab (supra) and other extraneous considerations that appear to be writ large in the discharge of his functions, we are left with no other option but to exercise our inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution for the purpose of declaring these ten Bills as deemed to have been assented on the date when they were presented to the Governor after being reconsidered by the State legislature," the bench said.
"The conduct exhibited on part of the Governor, as it clearly appears from the events that have transpired even during the course of the present litigation, has been lacking in bonafides. There have been clear instances where the Governor has failed in showing due deference and respect to the judgments and directions of this Court. In such a situation, it is difficult for us to repose our trust and remand the matter to the Governor with a direction to dispose of the bills in accordance with the observations made by us in this judgment," Justice Pardiwala, who penned the verdict for the bench, said.
As confrontation between the elected govt and the Governor has been on rise causing sometime constitutional breakdown in the state, SC said 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.
As the verdict extensively dealt with the role and functions of the Governor as prescribed under the Constitutional, the bench directed its registry to send one copy of the judgment to all the High Courts and the Principal Secretaries to the Governors of all States.
It said In times of conflict, the Governor 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. "He 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,". it said.
"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 his functions .... Due to this, the Governor must be conscious to not create roadblocks or chokehold the State Legislature in order to thwart and trade the will of the people for political edge," it said.
It 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," the bench said.
Appealing the constitutional functionaries to be guided by the values of the Constitution and not by politics, the bench said, "When called upon to take decisions, such authorities must not give in to ephemeral political considerations but rather be guided by the spirit that underlies the Constitution. They must look within and reflect whether their actions are informed by their constitutional oath and if the course of action adopted by them furthers the ideals enshrined in the Constitution. If the authorities attempt to deliberately bypass the constitutional mandate, they are tinkering with the very ideals revered by its people upon which this country has been built."
Questioning the conduct of the Governor who has been at loggerheads with the state govt on various issues, a bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said that the constitutional head of Tamil Nadu state "failed in showing due deference and respect to its judgments and directions".
"Having regard to the unduly long period of time for which these Bills were kept pending by the Governor before the ultimate declaration of withholding of assent and in view of the scant respect shown by the Governor to the decision of this Court in State of Punjab (supra) and other extraneous considerations that appear to be writ large in the discharge of his functions, we are left with no other option but to exercise our inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution for the purpose of declaring these ten Bills as deemed to have been assented on the date when they were presented to the Governor after being reconsidered by the State legislature," the bench said.
"The conduct exhibited on part of the Governor, as it clearly appears from the events that have transpired even during the course of the present litigation, has been lacking in bonafides. There have been clear instances where the Governor has failed in showing due deference and respect to the judgments and directions of this Court. In such a situation, it is difficult for us to repose our trust and remand the matter to the Governor with a direction to dispose of the bills in accordance with the observations made by us in this judgment," Justice Pardiwala, who penned the verdict for the bench, said.
As confrontation between the elected govt and the Governor has been on rise causing sometime constitutional breakdown in the state, SC said 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.
As the verdict extensively dealt with the role and functions of the Governor as prescribed under the Constitutional, the bench directed its registry to send one copy of the judgment to all the High Courts and the Principal Secretaries to the Governors of all States.
It said In times of conflict, the Governor 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. "He 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,". it said.
"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 his functions .... Due to this, the Governor must be conscious to not create roadblocks or chokehold the State Legislature in order to thwart and trade the will of the people for political edge," it said.
It 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," the bench said.
Appealing the constitutional functionaries to be guided by the values of the Constitution and not by politics, the bench said, "When called upon to take decisions, such authorities must not give in to ephemeral political considerations but rather be guided by the spirit that underlies the Constitution. They must look within and reflect whether their actions are informed by their constitutional oath and if the course of action adopted by them furthers the ideals enshrined in the Constitution. If the authorities attempt to deliberately bypass the constitutional mandate, they are tinkering with the very ideals revered by its people upon which this country has been built."
You may also like
Formula 1: Piastri claims pole outpacing Russell & Leclerc in Bahrain GP
Brits warned over Spain's strict new public drinking rules between certain hours
Experts stress need for sustained talks between India, B'desh to reinforce mutual trust
IPL 2025: SRH chases down 245, beats PBKS by 8 wickets
CEO who earned Rs 1,259 crore struggles with long books, does this instead. 'Why would I read 500 pages?'
