Tamil Nadu argued in the Supreme Court that a Governor cannot act as a “super Chief Minister”.
The argument was made before a Presidential Reference Bench headed by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai.
Tamil Nadu asserted that the Chief Minister and Cabinet are responsible for the State's governance.
The State argued that the Governor's role is to facilitate law-making, not dominate the State executive or legislature.
The Centre argued that a State cannot petition the Supreme Court under Article 32 for violation of fundamental rights by the Governor.
Detailed Insights:
The core issue revolves around the extent of gubernatorial discretion and whether it undermines the elected government's authority.
Article 200 of the Constitution deals with the Governor's power to assent to State Bills, withhold assent, or return the Bill for reconsideration.
Tamil Nadu referenced an April 8, 2025 judgment by the apex court regarding time limits for Governors to act on State Bills.
The State argued that a Governor's power to return a Bill or refer it to the President should be guided by the State Cabinet.
The Solicitor-General argued that a State cannot claim infringement of fundamental rights under Article 32 and that Governors have immunity under Article 361.
The debate touches upon the balance of power between the Governor (appointed) and the elected State Government in a parliamentary democracy.
Key Concepts Involved:
Article 32: Grants the right to individuals to move the Supreme Court seeking remedies for the violation of their fundamental rights.
Article 200: Deals with the Governor's role in granting assent to bills passed by the State legislature.
Article 361: Provides immunity to the President and Governors from court proceedings for actions taken in their official capacity.
Gubernatorial Discretion: Refers to the powers the Governor can exercise independently, without the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.