Appeal to Hon’ble Smt Droupadi Murmu President of India for exercising authority under Article 156 of the Constitution to discontinue the services of the present incumbent of the office of the Governor of Tamil Nadu, in view of the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
Respected Rashtrapati Ji,
In a Parliamentary democracy like ours, the institution of a Governor has a crucial role, that of being the apolitical custodian of the rule of law in the State and that of being a facilitator of the functioning of the State and its legislature in a democratic manner, as envisaged in Part VI of the Constitution, especially as laid down in Article 200 (“Assent to Bills”).
Over the years, the successive governments at the Centre have looked upon the institution of the Governor largely as an office of political patronage, not as an apolitical institution as required in the Constitution. As a result, many among those appointed to the office of the Governor of different States tended to act as agents of the ruling political executive at the Centre, often becoming an obstacle to, rather than a facilitator for the States in conducting their legislative functions.
Tamil Nadu presents a case in point in this respect.The Governor of Tamil Nadu, after returning 10 Bills for reconsideration by the Legislative Assembly and, after the Assembly reconsidered the Bills as suggested and returned them for Governor’s assent, kept them pending for an unduly long time without taking any definitive action as required in Article 200, thereby becoming an obstacle to allowing the State discharging its legislative function smoothly.
When the Tamil Nadu government approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the delay on the part of the Governor in processing the 10 Bills as required in Article 200, the court is reported to have invoked its authority under Article142 and observed that “since the bills remain pending with the Governor for an unduly long period of time and he did not act in a bona fide manner by reserving the bill for the consideration of the President, the bills are deemed to have been assented to by the Governor on the date when they were presented to him after being reconsidered by the Legislature” The court is reported to have observed that the use of the expression ‘as soon as possible’ in the first proviso of Article 200 makes it clear that the Constitution infuses a sense of urgency upon the Governor and expects him to act with expediency if he decides to declare the withholding of assent (https://www.barandbench.com/news/strict-timelines-governor-act-bk-pavitra-bad-law-key-takeaways-supreme-court-ruling-governors-powers)
While the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as above have far reaching implications for defining the role of the Governors in general, in the specific case of the present incumbent of the office of the Governor of Tamil Nadu, they raise serious concerns about the bona fides of the manner in which he had deliberately delayed action on the 10 Bills passed by the State legislature.
Against the above background, we feel that it is a fit case for intervention by the office of the President under Article 156 to remove the present incumbent of the office of the Governor of Tamil Nadu in view of the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the interest of safeguarding the democratic values on which our Constitution rests.
Respectfully,
Prof Jagdeep Chhokar, Former Professor of IIM(A)
Dr E A S Sarma, Former Secretary to the Government of India
