World
India
In a major blow to Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi, the Supreme Court of India ruled that his refusal to act on 10 re-passed bills submitted by the MK Stalin-led DMK government was not only unconstitutional but also legally invalid. The top court also declared that the bills would be considered as having received the governor’s assent from the day they were re-submitted.
This historic ruling by a bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan addresses rising tensions between opposition-ruled states and governors appointed by the Centre. The Tamil Nadu government had moved the Supreme Court in 2023, alleging that Governor Ravi’s repeated delays and eventual referral of the bills to the President went against the Constitution.
What the Supreme Court Said
The court invoked Article 142 of the Constitution, which allows it to pass any decree necessary for complete justice, to validate the bills. Justice Pardiwala stated that Governor Ravi had not acted “bona fide” and that referring the bills to the President after they were re-passed by the Assembly violated Article 200.
The court also made it clear that any action taken by the President afterward, such as rejecting or assenting to the bills, held no legal standing.
Understanding Article 200
As per Article 200 of the Indian Constitution, a governor can either assent to a bill, withhold assent, or reserve it for the President. However, this choice must be exercised when the bill is first submitted.
The court emphasized that governors cannot use a “pocket veto” by sitting on bills without taking any action for long periods. Once a bill is re-passed by the state assembly, the governor must give assent—it cannot be sent to the President again.
What Led to This Dispute?
Between January 2020 and April 2023, the Tamil Nadu government sent 12 bills to Governor Ravi, most of them aimed at curbing his role in appointing Vice-Chancellors in state universities. The governor delayed his response, prompting Chief Minister MK Stalin to approach the Supreme Court under Article 32.
In October 2023, the governor returned 10 bills and referred the remaining two to the President. The Assembly quickly re-passed all ten and sent them back. Still, Ravi again referred them to the President. The President later assented to one, rejected seven, and left two pending.
What This Means for Indian Federalism
The court’s decision sends a clear message that governors are not political gatekeepers but constitutional facilitators. The ruling is expected to set a precedent for how governors must deal with state legislatures moving forward.
It also restores clarity and constitutional order in the state governance system, reinforcing that real authority lies with the elected representatives, not the governor.
Similar Cases Across India
Tamil Nadu is not alone. Other states including Kerala, Telangana, and Punjab have also complained about their governors delaying important bills.
In Kerala, legislation related to post-COVID public health has reportedly been stuck for over two years. Telangana says more than 10 bills passed since September 2022 are still awaiting the governor’s nod.
In 2023, then Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud had already warned Punjab’s governor, Banwarilal Purohit, that in a parliamentary democracy, elected leaders not appointed governors hold the real power.
ALSO READ:
