The apex court has strongly criticized the Governor's rule happening in opposition states that do not bow down to the capricious wishes of the Centre. The Supreme Court has unequivocally termed as unconstitutional the act of holding up of bills, passed by the state, indefinitely without taking decision and stressed that the elected government’s decisions and policies should be respected. The bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan issued extraordinary warning after Governor R.N. Ravi indefinitely held up 10 bills passed by the Tamil Nadu government without taking decision. They include bills that the assembly passed in January 2020. Ordering him to take action on them immediately, the bench said he cannot sit on the bills as he long he wishes. Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin pointed out that the historic verdict is not for Tamil Nadu alone. It is also a relief for states including Kerala where administration has come to a standstill due to Governor's Rule. It is noteworthy that the Supreme Court’s verdict, referring to the constitutional provisions and emphasizing the importance of federalism, came while petitions of Kerala, Punjab and Telangana on the same issue are pending in the apex court. Therefore, the court's stand, upholding the federal system of the country constitutionally and the democratic rights of the legislature, is strong and commendable.
From day one, the Modi government has been trying to interfere unnecessarily in the affairs of the state governments through governors. The Center always looked for parallel rule via Raj Bhavans in states where it does not rule. The state governments naturally come under pressure when faced with measures including economic sanctions on the one hand and on the other hand governors intervening in a bargaining manner. This is how states are often forced to accept the agendas of the Center. The Pinarayi government faced these pressures at various stages when Arif Mohammed Khan was the Governor of Kerala. Let us recall just one instance. On February 17, 2022, the Governor made an announcement that he would not sign the policy address to be presented in the house the following day. Governor Arif Mohammed Khan, who had been at loggerheads with the government on various issues, decided so in protest against the government representative's dissent note in the order appointing the BJP state committee member Hari S Kartha as the Governor's Additional Personal Assistant. The Governor did not give in even after Chief Minister personally met him and held discussion. Finally, he agreed to sign after the Principal Secretary of the Public Administration Department, K.R. Jyothilal, who had written the dissent, was removed from his post. There were plenty of similar incidents alongside the trend of holding up the bills passed by the House. As per the petition filed by Kerala in the Supreme Court, the Governor has blocked six bills. More than a dozen bills are pending in the Raj Bhavan of Telangana for three or four years. A similar Governor's rule took place in Maharashtra earlier when Uddhav Thackeray was the Chief Minister. After these states filed petition, the Supreme Court now clarified the procedures on the bill by citing the provisions of the Constitution.
The apex court’s intervention is a major setback to the Modi government's excessive authoritarian tendencies and fascist attitude. The court has made it clear that though the Governor is constitutionally the 'Supreme Head' of the state administration, the elected representatives are responsible for formulating and implementing the policies, positions and programmes of the government, Alongside calling the Governor as the friend and guide of the government, the court explained what to do when a bill comes up for consideration. The Governor has the power to approve, reject, return it for reconsideration and leave it to the President’s consideration. The court also said that the Governor has no right to prolong matters indefinitely without taking any of the four decisions. The most striking remark in this judgment comes at its end. Concluding the judgment, the bench quoted the architect of the Constitution, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: 'However good a Constitution may be, if those who are implementing it are not good, it will prove to be bad'. This can also be considered the strongest political criticism of Modi and his administrative acolytes, the governors.