Supreme Court Rebukes Tamil Nadu Governor R. N. Ravi for Delaying Assent to 10 Bills -

Ravi Singh

Supreme Court Rebukes Tamil Nadu Governor R. N. Ravi for Delaying Assent to 10 Bills

New Delhi, April 8, 2025 — In a stern message to constitutional authorities, the Supreme Court of India on Tuesday pulled up Tamil Nadu Governor R. N. Ravi for delaying action on 10 Bills passed by the State Legislature. The apex court termed the Governor’s move to “sit over” the Bills and reserve them for Presidential consideration as a violation of constitutional norms.

SC Criticizes ‘Unconstitutional’ Delay

A Bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan made it clear that under Article 200 of the Indian Constitution, the Governor has no discretionary power when it comes to giving assent to Bills. The court reminded that the Governor is bound to act on the aid and advice of the elected Council of Ministers.

“The Governor cannot withhold assent indefinitely, nor can he exercise a pocket or absolute veto,” observed the Bench, adding that constitutional roles are not to be interpreted as power positions but as duty-bound offices.

No Second Chance for Reservation

The controversy began when Governor R.N. Ravi reserved 10 Bills for the President’s consideration even after they were re-passed by the Tamil Nadu Assembly. The court highlighted that the Constitution does not allow the Governor to reserve a Bill for a second time unless the Bill has undergone substantial changes.

The Bench ruled that the Governor must provide assent in the second round, reaffirming the spirit of federalism and democratic governance.

Political and Legal Ramifications

The Supreme Court’s strong words have added fuel to the ongoing tension between the DMK-led Tamil Nadu government and Raj Bhavan. Chief Minister M.K. Stalin has previously accused the Governor of deliberately stalling the legislative process and obstructing governance.

Legal experts say the verdict could set a crucial precedent in ensuring Governors do not overstep their constitutional boundaries. “This is a wake-up call. Governors are not political gatekeepers; they are facilitators of the constitutional process,” said senior constitutional lawyer G. Mohan.

What’s Next?

While the Supreme Court stopped short of issuing a directive compelling the Governor to act, the judgment has created clear constitutional expectations. Any further delay in assenting to the Bills could now invite stronger legal action or even a contempt plea.

As the debate continues over the role of Governors in a parliamentary democracy, today’s development underscores the Supreme Court’s commitment to upholding the Constitution and protecting the sanctity of democratic institutions.

FAQ:

What is the issue between the Tamil Nadu Governor and the State Government?

The Tamil Nadu Governor, R.N. Ravi, delayed giving assent to 10 Bills passed by the state legislature and reserved them for the President’s consideration. This move was challenged for being unconstitutional.

What did the Supreme Court say about the Governor’s action?

The Supreme Court said the Governor has no discretionary power under Article 200 of the Constitution and must act on the advice of the Council of Ministers. He cannot indefinitely delay or veto Bills.

What is Article 200 of the Indian Constitution?

Article 200 deals with the Governor’s role in assenting to Bills. It allows the Governor to either give assent, withhold assent, or reserve the Bill for the President’s consideration—but not after it’s re-passed by the Assembly.

Can the Governor reserve a Bill for the President more than once?

No. The Supreme Court clearly stated that once a Bill is re-passed by the Assembly, the Governor must either give or withhold assent. Reservation for the President in the second round is not permitted unless the Bill has changed significantly.

Why is this verdict important?

It reinforces constitutional boundaries and emphasizes that Governors must not act as political obstacles. It’s a strong affirmation of democratic and federal principles in India.

What could happen if the Governor continues to delay action?

While the court didn’t pass a binding order, continued inaction could lead to legal consequences such as contempt of court or intervention by the President or the Union Government.