In a significant legal victory for the Tamil Nadu government, led by Chief Minister MK Stalin, the Supreme Court today declared Governor RN Ravi’s decision to withhold assent from 10 state Bills as both “unlawful” and “arbitrary.” The apex court made it clear that once a Bill is re-passed by the legislative assembly, the Governor cannot forward it to the President after withholding assent.
A bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan ruled that the Governor’s move to reserve the Bills for the President lacked constitutional merit and did not follow due process. “The reservation of these Bills was not in accordance with the law. The Governor’s actions in this regard are hereby nullified,” the court stated, adding that these Bills will be considered approved from the date they were re-submitted to the Governor.
The court strongly observed that Governor Ravi had not acted “in good faith” and emphasized that his powers under Article 200 of the Constitution are not unlimited. According to Article 200, a Governor may either approve a Bill, withhold assent, or send it for the President’s review if it contradicts the Constitution or concerns national interest. The Governor may also return the Bill to the assembly with recommendations. However, once reapproved by the House, the Governor is constitutionally bound to give assent.
To bring clarity and accountability to the process, the Supreme Court introduced strict timelines for Governors to respond to legislation. A maximum of one month is allotted for deciding whether to grant or withhold assent or refer the Bill to the President with the advice of the Council of Ministers. If a Bill is sent to the President without ministerial consultation, the time frame is extended to three months. If the Assembly sends the Bill again after reconsideration, the Governor must act within a month.
The bench emphasized that while it respects the Governor’s constitutional role, his decisions must be consistent with democratic values. “We are not curtailing the Governor’s powers,” the justices noted. “However, every action must conform to the norms of parliamentary democracy and remain open to judicial review.”
Governor RN Ravi, a former IPS officer and ex-CBI official, assumed office in 2021. Since then, he has frequently locked horns with the DMK-led state government. The Tamil Nadu administration has accused him of acting with political bias and obstructing the legislative process. The Governor, on his part, claims his decisions are based on constitutional authority.
Their disputes have extended to public functions, including Governor Ravi walking out of the state Assembly last year due to protocol disagreements involving the National Anthem. In previous years, he refused to deliver parts of the customary Assembly speech that mentioned Dravidian leaders like Periyar and CN Annadurai, as well as references to the “Dravidian Model” of governance.
Today’s judgment sends a strong signal about maintaining the balance of power and ensuring constitutional roles are not misused to stall democratic governance.
