Action And Authority

 "Governors and the execution of decisions by elected regimes: Action and authority."

Once again, the issue of political appointees in Raj Bhavan using their authority to hinder or potentially undermine the implementation of decisions by elected regimes is highlighted, as two states, Tamil Nadu and Kerala, have approached the Supreme Court of India to challenge the actions of their Governors. They are particularly concerned about the delay in granting assent to bills passed by the legislature. Tamil Nadu has additional grievances regarding proposals related to granting remission to convicts, sanctioning the prosecution of former Ministers, and appointments to State Public Service Commissions, which have not seen any action.

While it is important to note that Governors are not required to merely rubber-stamp decisions, it does raise questions about the practices of some Governors, especially in states not governed by the ruling party at the Centre, when they appear to obstruct decisions and bills. For example, certain Governors seem resistant to the idea of amending university laws if those amendments seek to exclude Chancellors, who are typically the Governors themselves, from the process of appointing vice-chancellors or establishing new universities in which Governors do not serve as chancellors. The tradition of Governors serving as ex-officio vice-chancellors for most universities is a matter of practice and is established through their founding statutes. However, it appears that some Governors hold the misconception that they have a right to be chancellors and consequently delay assent to bills that reduce or eliminate their authority.

It is high time to implement a national prohibition on Governors assuming the role of chancellor for any university, a recommendation made by the Justice M.M. Punchhi Commission on Centre-State relations.

It's regrettable that some Governors utilize the absence of a specific time-frame for granting assent as a means to obstruct laws passed by the legislature. One might have expected that the Supreme Court's observations, which arose from the Telangana government's petition and emphasized that the phrase "as soon as possible" in Article 200 of the Constitution holds significant "constitutional content," would have instilled in them a sense of urgency when considering Bills. The Court's intent was to convey that it would be constitutionally impermissible for Governors to indefinitely withhold Bills without conveying a decision.