New Delhi – In a significant escalation of the feud between the Tamil Nadu government and the Raj Bhavan, Chief Minister M.K. Stalin has declared there will be “no rest” until the Constitution is amended to impose a specific timeline for Governors to approve bills. The statement signals a major push from a political standoff to a demand for fundamental constitutional reform, a sentiment gaining traction across several opposition-ruled states.
The Core Conflict: Governor’s ‘Pocket Veto’
The latest flashpoint in the long-running dispute between the DMK government and Governor R.N. Ravi centres on the Governor’s constitutional role in giving assent to a bill. Chief Minister Stalin, speaking at a public event, firmly stated that a Governor has no authority to indefinitely “pause” or sit on bills passed by the democratically elected State Assembly. He argued that this inaction effectively functions as a “pocket veto,” undermining the will of the legislature and the people it represents.
Article 200 and the Constitutional Grey Area
At the heart of this constitutional debate is Article 200, which outlines a Governor’s options when presented with a bill. The Governor can:
* Grant assent.
* Withhold assent.
* Reserve the bill for the President’s consideration.
If the Governor withholds assent and returns the bill, the legislature can re-pass it. Once re-passed, the Constitution clearly states that the Governor “shall not withhold assent therefrom.” However, the Tamil Nadu government, along with states like Kerala and Punjab, argues that some Governors are exploiting a perceived grey area by neither assenting nor returning bills, effectively putting them in legislative limbo. The anti-NEET bill in Tamil Nadu has been a prime example of this delay, fuelling significant public and political outrage.
Supreme Court Weighs In on Governor’s Role
This confrontation has now reached the Supreme Court, which recently made sharp observations on the matter. While hearing a petition from the Punjab government, the apex court noted that Governors are not “elected representatives” and must act on the aid and advice of the council of ministers. A bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud remarked that Governors should not make legislatures “wait indefinitely,” lending significant legal weight to the arguments made by CM Stalin.
Stalin’s Call for Constitutional Amendment
Emboldened by the Supreme Court’s stance, Tamil Nadu CM Stalin’s call for a constitutional amendment is a calculated and powerful political move. His declaration that there will be ‘no rest till Constitution is amended’ frames this as a fight for a permanent solution to gubernatorial overreach. The proposed amendment would seek to insert a mandatory timeframe within which a Governor must act on a bill, closing the loophole that allows for indefinite delays.
A Broader Battle for Federalism
This issue has now transcended state-specific grievances to become a major flashpoint in the debate on Indian federalism. Critics argue that the office of the Governor is being used as a political tool to thwart the legislative agendas of opposition-ruled states. As CM Stalin throws down the gauntlet, the question is no longer just about the fate of specific bills. It is about the fundamental balance of power between the Centre and the states, and the role of an appointed Governor in a parliamentary democracy.
