Some governors are playing a role where they ought not to: Supreme Court judge

Underlining the evolving role of governors within the Indian political framework, Supreme Court judge BV Nagarathna has criticised governors for either overstepping their constitutional role or failing to act effectively when needed.

Underlining the evolving role of governors within the Indian political framework, Supreme Court judge BV Nagarathna has criticised governors for either overstepping their constitutional role or failing to act effectively when needed.

Some governors are playing a role where they ought not to: Supreme Court judge

In her keynote address at the Pluralist Agreement and Constitutional Transformation Conference organised by NLSIU in Bengaluru on Saturday evening, justice Nagarathna reflected on the initial constitutional vision articulated by G Durgabai – an Indian freedom fighter and a member of the Constituent assembly of India - who saw the governor as a figure meant to transcend party politics and foster harmony.

However, justice Nagarathna lamented the contemporary reality. “But in today’s times, unfortunately, some of the governors in India are playing a role where they ought not to and are inactive where they ought to be.”

The apex court judge’s remarks came at a time when the country has seen multiple standoffs between state governments and their governors, often resulting in legal battles and Supreme Court interventions. These conflicts typically arise when state governments seek gubernatorial approval for bills or other matters, exposing the tensions within India’s federal structure and the complex dynamics between state administrations and governors, who act as presidential representatives at the state level.

Recent disputes have emerged in states such as Punjab, Tamil Nadu and Kerala, where these states filed writ petitions with the Supreme Court challenging their governors’ refusals to grant assent to bills passed by the state legislatures. The states contended that the governors were overstepping their constitutional roles and obstructing the functioning of democratically elected governments.

The Supreme Court has previously intervened in similar cases, urging governors to make timely decisions. Generally, the court has supported the authority of democratically elected governments and ruled in favor of state administrations. It has emphasized that governors are required to act based on the advice of their councils of ministers and cannot unreasonably withhold assent to bills. The court has also reprimanded governors for delays and questioned the rationale behind their refusals to act until legal petitions are filed by the states.

On Monday, the Supreme Court is set to deliver its verdict on yet another row between the Delhi government and the Capital’s lieutenant governor over the latter unilaterally appointing ten aldermen to Delhi’s civic agency - the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.

Justice Nagarathna’s address, titled “Home in the Nation: Indian Women’s Constitutional Imagination,” delved into the profound contributions of Indian women to the constitutional ethos of India. She urged that the constitutional morality and semantics established by the Founding Mothers should not be confined to women’s movements but should be recognized for their significant impact on the broader constitutional framework. She highlighted the forward-thinking nature of figures like Purnima Mukherjee, who advocated for the explicit mention of popular sovereignty in the Preamble, demonstrating a deep understanding of the relationship between the people and the Constitution.

Stressing on the importance of federalism and fraternity in strengthening Indian democracy, the judge maintained that federalism should not lead to the marginalization of States but should ensure that both Union and state authorities work collaboratively towards public welfare. “The spirit of constitutional statesmanship and not partisan brinkmanship should be the mantra. At the core of their respective jurisdictions is Jana Kalyana, public welfare, or what can also be called public interest,” she said.

Justice Nagarathna emphasised the need for a robust adherence to fundamental rights, advocating for procedural fairness, respect for the rule of law, and consultative decision-making. She said that the judiciary must uphold these principles with empathy and equity, ensuring that justice is accessible to all citizens, regardless of their status. “As a member of the Indian judiciary, I am assured that in the decades to come, the courts in India as a composite institution will serve “We, the People” and steer the chariot of justice towards our constitutional destiny,” she said.

The keynote address also called for a shift from a constitutional society to a constitutional polity, urging that public policies align with the principles of economic democracy outlined in the directive principles of state policy under the Constitution.

Underscoring the significance of social, economic and political empowerment of women, justice Nagarathna said: “For a transformative change in society and securing true ‘constructive citizenship’ the protection of law must ensure that women don’t have to strike a bargain between motherhood and employment...a transformative outlook on inclusive governance necessarily includes women in active decision making.”

Justice Nagarathna concluded with a call for introspection, noting that while India has made significant progress, there is still much work to be done to fully realize the ideals set forth by the Founding Fathers and Mothers.