In a landmark judgment handed down on April 8, 2025, the Supreme Court of India considered the constitutional boundaries of the power of a Governor over state laws, in this case, bringing to the fore the actions of Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi. The Court held that Governor Ravi’s move of not giving assent to ten bills introduced in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly and then reserving them for the President’s consideration was considered “illegal and arbitrary.”
Background of the Case
From April 2020 to April 2023, the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly cleared various bills. Governor Ravi, however, preferred to hold back his assent to these legislative bills, resulting in a constitutional deadlock. After the re-passing of these bills by the Assembly, the Governor subsequently reserved them for the President’s assent, compelling the Tamil Nadu government to approach the courts for judicial relief.
Supreme Court’s Ruling
The Supreme Court, in pronouncing the judgment, asserted that in accordance with Article 200 of the Indian Constitution, the Governor has well-defined options before him while handling a bill:
- Grant Assent: Sign the bill into law.
- Withhold Assent: Deny the bill, calling for its reconsideration by the legislature.
- Submit the bill to the President for deliberation if it has any discrepancies with the Constitution or concerns issues of significant national interest.
The Court made it clear that if a Governor withholds assent and the Legislative Assembly passes the bill again, the Governor is bound by the Constitution to give assent and cannot reserve it again for the President. This action by the Governor was deemed to be “illegal and erroneous.”
Also Read: No More Waqf Overreach: Section 40 Dumped After Years of Land Drama.
Timelines Established by the Court
To avert potential delays and facilitate effective operations of state legislatures, the Supreme Court established definite time frames for initiatives by governors:
- Withholding Assent or Reserving for President (on Council of Ministers’ Advice): To be decided within one month.
- Withholding Assent or Reserving against Council of Ministers’ Advice: The Decision should be taken within three months.
- Reconsideration by Assembly: If the Assembly passes a bill again, the Governor must give assent within a month.
Implications of the Verdict
This decision has profound implications for the power balance between Governors and state governments:
- Restraining the ‘Pocket Veto’: The ruling limits the Governor’s power to hold bills indefinitely in abeyance, mandating timely decision-making.
- Strengthening Federal Principles: By clearly defining the role of the Governor, the Court bolsters the independence of state legislatures and preserves the federal system of government.
- Establishing a Precedent: The decision serves as a precedent to similar disputes in other jurisdictions and leaves room for consistency in enforcing constitutional laws.
Reactions to the Judgment
The Supreme Court’s decision quickly resonated in political circles, drawing stinging reactions from ruling elites and opposition forces throughout India.
In Tamil Nadu, Chief Minister M.K. Stalin hailed the verdict, terming it as a “historic validation of democratic values and federalism.” Speaking to media personnel, Stalin stated, “This is not just a victory in law but a victory of each state legislature that has seen its will usurped by unconstitutional obstruction. The Governor cannot become a roadblock for the people’s will.” Apart from that, Stalin stated that the DMK government would proceed with the implementation of the re-passed legislation that was stalled due to inaction by the Governor.
The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) of the state government has been criticized for supporting Governor R.N. Ravi’s contentious move and has reacted in tempered words, with party functionaries saying the Governor acted as per constitutional requirements while also expressing their “respect for the interpretation of the Supreme Court.” BJP functionaries did so in secret, however, on grounds of protest against the timing of the verdict, which could be used to support regional parties against allegations of over-centralization.
Leaders of opposition-governed states like West Bengal, Kerala, and Telangana welcomed the ruling promptly. West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee posted on Twitter: “The Court has rightly reminded us that Governors are not agents of the Centre, but constitutional heads who must act on the advice of elected governments.” Kerala’s Pinarayi Vijayan also felt the same way, calling the ruling “a much-needed check on executive overreach through the Governor’s office.” Indian National Congress also expressed its view. Senior Congress leader Jairam Ramesh stated, “This judgment should put an end to the rising trend of Governors being politicized as tools to stall governance in opposition-governed states. Federalism has been preserved today.”
Constitutional bodies and academic legal experts praised the ruling for its clarity. Madan Lokur, a former Supreme Court judge, said that the Court had “sent an important message on constitutional ethics and the need for timely gubernatorial intervention.” Civil society organizations and legal bodies noted that this judgment has the power to enable increased accountability and consistency in the activities of Governors all over India.
At the same time, certain political commentators have opined that the judgment can possibly open the doors to more confrontations between the Centre and the states, particularly as more states queue up to exercise their autonomy in the teeth of central opposition. This judgment is likely to raise debates in Parliament and may result in renewed demands for a rehaul of the job and appointment procedure of Governors in India.
The Constitution Times