Supreme Court Moots 'Pre-Litigation Consultation' To Reduce Friction Between Centre-State Relations
The Supreme Court emphasised that the Constitutional authorities are creatures of the Constitution and are bound by the limitations prescribed by it and no authority, in exercise of its powers, must attempt to breach the Constitutional firewall.
The Supreme Court in its important Judgment, suggested a practice of pre-litigation consultation to reduce the friction between Centre-State relations.
The Court was deciding a Writ Petition filed by the Tamil Nadu State being aggrieved by the action of the Governor on few issues of prime public importance, seeking appropriate reliefs.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan remarked, “… as a matter of prudence, the States should enter into pre-legislation consultation with the Central government before introducing legislations on matters pertaining to those provisions of the Constitution where the assent of the President may be required. Likewise, the Central government, should consider the legislative proposals sent by the State governments with due regard and expediency. Such a practice reduces friction between Centre State relations and also ensures that future roadblocks are overcome in the beginning itself, thereby promoting public welfare.”
The Bench emphasised that the Constitutional authorities are creatures of the Constitution and are bound by the limitations prescribed by it and no authority, in exercise of its powers, or to put it precisely, in discharge of its duties, must attempt to breach the Constitutional firewall.
“The office of the Governor is no exception to this supreme command”, it added.
Senior Advocates Rakesh Dwivedi, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, and P. Wilson appeared for the Petitioner while Attorney General for India (AGI) R. Venkatramani and Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Vikramjit Banerjee appeared for the Respondents.
In this case, the Legislature for the State of Tamil Nadu, between January 13, 2020 and April 28, 2023, enacted and forwarded 12 Bills to the Governor for grant of assent as per Article 200 of the Constitution. Even though the present Governor took charge of the office with effect from November 18, 2021, yet he did not take the necessary action on any of the said Bills forwarded to his office till October 2023. The Petitioner, being aggrieved by the inaction on part of the Governor, had to ultimately file the Writ Petition before the Apex Court.
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court in view of the facts of the case, noted, “Whenever there is an attempt by any authority to move beyond the bounds of the Constitution, this Court has been entrusted with the responsibility to act as the Sentinel on the qui vive and bring back the authority within the constitutionally permissible limits by exercising judicial review. We are not exercising our power under Article 142 in a casual manner, or without giving a thought to it. On the contrary, it is only after deepest of deliberations, and having reached at the firm conclusion that the actions of the Governor - first in exhibiting prolonged inaction over the bills; secondly in declaring a simplicter withholding of assent and returning the bills without a message; and thirdly in reserving the bills for the President in the second round - were all in clear violation of the procedure envisaged under the Constitution, that we have decided to declare the deeming of assent to the ten bills, considering it to be our constitutionally bounden duty.”
The Court said that the Governor is not amenable to the directions of the Union government, nor does the Constitution make him accountable to the Centre for the manner in which he carries out his functions and duties. The office of Governor is an independent constitutional office.
Role Of The Governor
The Court observed that the Governor, by virtue of Article 163, is bound by the aid and advice of the State Council of Ministers and therefore, in the event of a conflict between the aid and advice of the State Council of Ministers and the dictates of the Central Government, the scheme of the Constitution indicates that the Governor must adhere to the former.
“With the broad tenets of the role of the Governor under the constitutional scheme, the Commission, while appraising the existing framework of Centre-State relations, observed that a major point of friction between the Centre and States is the power of the Governor to reserve any State bill for the consideration of the President, sometimes even for an indefinite period”, it further enunciated.
Article 200, Governor’s Inaction & Judicial Review
The Court explained that the failure to comply with the following timelines would make the inaction of the Governors subject to judicial review by the Courts –
(i) In case of either withholding of assent or reservation of the bill for the consideration of the President upon the aid and advice of the State Council of Ministers, the Governor is expected to take such an action forthwith subject to a maximum period of one-month;
(ii) In case of withholding of assent contrary to the advice of the State Council of Ministers, the Governor must return the bill together with a message within a maximum period of three-months;
(iii) In case of reservation of bills for the consideration of the President contrary to the advice of the State Council of Ministers, the Governor shall make such reservation within a maximum period of three months; In case of presentation of bill after reconsideration in accordance with the first proviso, the Governor must grant assent forthwith, subject to a maximum period of one-month.
Conclusion
The Court held that where the Governor reserves a bill for the consideration of the President in his own discretion and contrary to the aid and advice tendered to him by the State Council of Ministers, it shall be open to the State Government to assail such an action before the appropriate High Court or the Apex Court.
“Where the Governor reserves a bill for the consideration of the President and the President in turn withholds assent thereto then, it shall be open to the State Government to assail such an action before this Court”, it also held.
The Court observed that 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.
“He must perform his role of a friend, philosopher and guide with dispassion, guided not by considerations of political expediency but by the sanctity of the constitutional oath he undertakes”, it further said.
Moreover, the Court emphasised that at 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 and that 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 is imperative that all his actions be guided in true allegiance to his oath and that he faithfully executes his functions that he is entrusted with by and under the Constitution”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the Apex Court disposed of the Writ Petition and directed the Registry to send one copy each of the Judgment to all the High Courts and the Principal Secretaries to the Governors of all States.
Cause Title- The State of Tamil Nadu v. The Governor of Tamil Nadu & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 481)
