Extent of Governor’s immunity under Article 361

Why in News 

The Tamil Nadu government argued that the Governor cannot act as a “super CM” and has no independent legislative authority.

• The issue arises from the April 8, 2025 judgment where the SC had prescribed time limits for Governors to act on Bills under Article 200, triggering a reference on whether this curtailed gubernatorial discretion.

Key Issues: Article 361

• Can the Governor withhold assent indefinitely on State Bills?
• Does the Governor act independently or only on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers?
• Does the Governor hold the final authority on a Bill, or simply act as a facilitator?
• Can a State invoke Article 32 against the Governor, claiming violation of fundamental rights?
• Extent of Governor’s immunity under Article 361.

Relevant Constitutional Provisions:

• Article 154: The Governor formally holds the State’s executive authority, but it is carried out through the Council of Ministers.
• Article 163: Governor to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, except in certain discretionary matters.
• Article 200: Governor’s options regarding State Bills – assent, withhold, return (if not a Money Bill), or reserve for President.
• Article 201: President’s power to decide on State Bills referred by the Governor.
• Article 361: Governor’s immunity from legal proceedings for acts done in office.

Related Case Laws:

• Shamsher Singh vs. State of Punjab (1974) – Governor is the head  of constitution  &he  is  bound by aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
• Nabam Rebia vs. Deputy Speaker (2016) – Governor cannot exercise powers in a manner that destabilizes an elected government.
• April 8, 2025 SC Judgment (TN Governor case) – Prescribed that Governors should act on Bills within a reasonable time, ideally 3 months, to prevent constitutional deadlock.
• Shamsher Singh vs. State of Punjab (1974) – Governor is a constitutional head, bound by aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
• Rameshwar Prasad vs. Union of India (2006) – Governor cannot misuse discretionary powers to dissolve Assemblies

Committee Recommendations:

• Sarkaria Commission (1988): Governor should act as a bridge, not as an obstacle; discretion must be minimal.
• Punchhi Commission (2010): Time limit for Governor’s action on Bills; suggested constitutional amendments to prevent misuse of office.
• Rajamannar Committee (1971) (set up by Tamil Nadu): Recommended abolition of the post of Governor, citing misuse by the Centre.

Way Forward:

1. Time-bound action: Fix a strict constitutional time frame (e.g., 3–6 months) for Governors to act on Bills.
2. Codify “discretion”: Limit Governor’s discretionary powers only to clearly defined areas (e.g., constitutional breakdown, hung Assembly).
3. Strengthen Cooperative Federalism: Ensure Governors act as neutral constitutional heads, not political agents of the Union.
4. Parliamentary reforms: Consider amending Articles 200–201 to avoid deadlocks between elected governments and Governors.

Judicial clarity: SC must balance federal autonomy with checks against arbitrary state laws.