| I |
n Tamil Nadu, there are 20 State Universities rendering higher education services with each one established and controlled by the State Government by exclusive Acts, legislated by the State Assembly. All the financial requirements of these Universities are to be met by the State treasury for which the Governor of Tamil Nadu, in the ex officio capacity is the Chancellor, but the Chief Minister is to be the Chancellor of that University. In this line, many Universities have been functioning in other States, exercising the administrative control with some sort of autonomy to function.
Since May 2021, the DMK has been ruling the State of Tamil Nadu. The Governor of Tamil Nadu, despite his capacity as the Chancellor was exercising control over the State Universities starting from the formation of search committee, selection and appointment of Vice-Chancellors. The search committees were formed by the Governor in such a way, that State Government has a subordinate say in the selection of Vice-Chancellors. The decision making role of Governor, as the Chancellor, had been prevailing in the State for many years. Many Universities have to function without the Vice- Chancellor owing to the lack of co-operation from the Governor. In many Universities, the convocation could not be held owing to the post of the Vice Chancellors being vacant. This trend continues for a long time by which the higher education of the State has, suffered seriously. The elected State Government has the responsibility to answer the people who elected them to rule.
Related articles
The Legislations duly enacted by the State legislature has conferred the position of Chancellor of the State Universities on the Governor in the ex-officio capacity. The post of Governor is the formal head of the government and he has to function constitutionally, with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers of the State at all times except on a few occasions. Such few occasions do not cover the issues related to the State Universities. The present Governor has not acted as per the oath taken by him while swearing in.
Article 159 of the Constitution says that the State Governor should act to the best of his ability, preserve, protect and defend the constitution and the law and that he will devote himself to the service and well-being of the people of the State.
The Governor of Tamil Nadu had not acted as per the oath taken by him, causing ill effects and deterioration in the functioning of the State Universities owing to the vacancy of the Vice-Chancellor post in them.
The responsible State Government had to amend all the Acts of the Universities, with replacement / insertion of provisions so that the State government will be the ultimate appointment authority of Vice Chancellors of the respective State University and to initiate disciplinary action against the erring Vice- Chancellor as well. The Amendments were made duly at the State Legislative Assembly, which enacted the parental Acts of the respective Universities. The passed Bills (10 + 2) were sent to the Governor for his due assent.
The Government had withheld all the Bills without taking any action on it. As per Art.200 of the Constitution, the Governor has to act on either of the following ways.
- i) Withholding the Bill to assent
- ii) Returning the Bill with specific remarks
iii) Forwarding the Bill in case of need, for the assent of the President of India.
In case the returned Bill is reconsidered by the State Assembly with or without any amendment over the remarks of the Governor, he has to necessarily assent the Bill. On any account, he cannot reject the Bill which is the implied meaning embedded in the Constitutional provision.
Besides, the Governor has to act on the Bill ‘as soon as possible’, as per the provision in the Constitution. In respect of the Bills sent to the Governor by the State Government, the Governor has kept the Bills pending without exercising either of the ways prescribed in the Constitution. The Governor has kept them pending, delaying extra-ordinarily. Without any constitutional basis, he had stated in open forum that if the Governor retains the Bill, it means that the Bill passed by the State Legislative Assembly is rejected. The Governor has no authority to say like that. On the contrary to the core the Governor had stated that there is no time line for him to act on the Bill. The constitutional provision says, the time line is ‘as soon as possible’ which anyone knows the vocabulary / phrasal usage of English. How could the Governor mean without any application of mind coupled with adamancy not to act on the Bills? One Bill pending was passed by the earlier elected government in 2020.
For the first time in the constitutional history of the country, the Supreme Court itself gave assent (deemed to be assent) to the pending 10 Bills at Raj Bhavan. Besides, to avert the eventuality of similar situation for other State Government the time lines were fixed for the State Government to act on the Bills passed and sent by the respective State Legislature.
Despite the reminders and persuasion from the State Government, nothing fruitful materialised on the side of Raj Bhavan. The State government had no option except to file a petition at the Supreme Court for a remedy. The apex court also advised through the Solicitor General of India who appeared on behalf of the Tamil Nadu Governor to discuss with the Government and arrive at a final disposal. After the Supreme Court was approached by the State Government, the Governor, keeping the original Bills at Raj Bhavan, sent the copies of the Bills to the State Government for reconsideration. After carrying out the exercise, the Governor through the counsel stated at the apex court that no Bills were pending at his side.
The State Assembly within a few days, again sent the Bills as such without any amendment to the Governor for assent. Now, out of the 12 Bills resent to Raj Bhavan, 10 Bills were kept pending with him and 2 Bills were forwarded to the President of India to act on. The constitutional provisions have also not specified the time line for the President to act on the forwarded Bills. The two Bills are pending at Rashtrapati Bhavan. During the course of hearing of the case, it was pointed out by the apex court, that the passed Bills sent by the State Legislature, if required, may be forwarded to the President of India at the first instance itself. But the Bills sent to the Governor for the second time, could not be forwarded to the President. The Governor has no option except to assent the resent Bills.
Despite sufficient time provided to the Governor to act on the Bills, the Governor did not utilize the opportunity to dispose of the Bills. Finally the apex court has delivered the judgment, exercising the power vested with it under Art.142 of the Constitution. The purpose of the special power is to deliver ‘complete justice’ reflecting the spirit of the constitutional provisions. For the first time in the constitutional history of the country, the Supreme Court itself gave assent (deemed to be assent) to the pending 10 Bills at Raj Bhavan. Besides, to avert the eventuality of similar situation for other State Government the time lines were fixed for the State Government to act on the Bills passed and sent by the respective State Legislature.
- In case of withholding assent, one month.
- In case of withholding assent contrary to advise of the State Cabinet, three months.
- In case of Bills presented for reconsideration by Governors, one month.
The Supreme Court said the Governor cannot withhold assent and adopt concept of absolute veto or pocket veto.
Overall, the Bills could be disposed within the maximum of 3 months in case they are forwarded to the President to act on. This specification fixes the timeline for the President of India also to act on the State Legislated Bills. This pronouncement has created precedence in the Constitutional democracy of our country.
The 415 pages judgment by Justice J.B.Pardiwala and Justice R.Mahadevan was delivered on 8th April 2025. The judgment provided the solution to the State Government of Tamil Nadu in the held case, The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. The Governor of Tamil Nadu & Anr. Besides, it assumed forbearance to other States also, by fixing timeline for the State Governors to act on the Legislated Bills of the respective State Assemblies.
– V. Kumaresan
