Governor cannot act as 'super CM', Tamil Nadu tells Supreme Court in federal structure debate
Tamil Nadu argued in the Supreme Court that a Governor cannot act as a "super Chief Minister" and has limited discretion, countering the Centre's view of wide gubernatorial powers. Senior advocate A.M. Singhvi, representing Tamil Nadu, stated that the Governor is a "lubricator" or "facilitator," not a legislator, and acts on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. The State questioned how a Governor could have the final say on a Bill, emphasizing that general discretion would create chaos in responsible governments. The Centre, represented by Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta, argued that a State cannot file an Article 32 petition for fundamental rights violation by the Governor, who enjoys "complete immunity" under Article 361.
Key Points
- Tamil Nadu argued in the Supreme Court that a Governor's role is limited to a "lubricator" or "facilitator," not a "super Chief Minister."
- The Governor must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, especially regarding legislative processes.
- Tamil Nadu challenged the notion of wide gubernatorial discretion, stating it would lead to chaos in responsible governments.
- The Centre contended that a State cannot invoke Article 32 for fundamental rights violations by the Governor, who has immunity under Article 361.
- The debate highlights the ongoing tensions and constitutional interpretations regarding the powers of the Governor and the federal structure.
Exam Facts
- Article 200 deals with the Governor's assent to State Bills.
- Article 32 grants the right to constitutional remedies, allowing citizens to move the Supreme Court for fundamental rights violations.
- Article 361 provides protection to the President and Governors from legal proceedings.
- The Presidential Reference Bench was headed by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai.
Read it. Retain it. Recall it.
Get spaced-repetition flashcards, daily quizzes and offline access — free on Android.