In a major victory for the MK Stalin-led Tamil Nadu government, the Supreme Court on Friday declared Governor RN Ravi’s refusal to assent to 10 crucial Bills as both “illegal” and “arbitrary”, further adding that a Governor cannot withhold assent and subsequently reserve Bills for the President.
“The Governor’s decision to refer the 10 Bills to the President was unlawful and arbitrary. Therefore, the action is quashed,” stated the bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan. “All steps taken by the Governor regarding these Bills stand annulled. The Bills will be considered cleared from the date they were re-submitted to him.” The court further observed that the Governor had not acted in “good faith.” The bench emphasized that once the Assembly passes a Bill again after reconsideration, the Governor is constitutionally obligated to grant assent.
What does the Constitution say regarding Governor’s assent to bills passed in state assemblies
Under Article 200 of the Constitution, when a Bill passed by the state legislature is presented to the Governor, they may assent, withhold assent, or reserve it for the President’s consideration. The Governor may also return the Bill for reconsideration. However, if the Bill is passed again without amendments, the Governor must give assent. A Bill can be reserved for the President only if it contradicts the Constitution, violates directive principles of state policy, or raises issues of national importance.
Also Read: US Supreme Court rejects Tahawwur Rana’s plea against extradition to India
The court also introduced timelines for Governors to exercise these options. If withholding assent or reserving a Bill for presidential review—done with the advice of the Council of Ministers—the Governor must act within one month. If done independently, the time frame extends to three months.
For Bills re-passed by the legislature, the Governor must grant assent within a month. The court held that any action taken under Article 200 is subject to judicial review. Importantly, the court clarified that this ruling does not undermine the Governor’s constitutional role, but insisted that all gubernatorial actions must respect the principles of parliamentary democracy.
The ongoing tussle between the Governor and Tamil Nadu government
RN Ravi, a former IPS officer and ex-CBI official, was appointed Governor of Tamil Nadu in 2021. Since then, his relationship with the DMK-led state government has been fraught with tension. The state has accused him of acting as a BJP representative and obstructing legislation and appointments. Governor Ravi has defended his actions, arguing that the Constitution allows him to withhold assent.
Disputes between the state and the Raj Bhavan have also played out during Assembly sessions. In one instance, the Governor exited the House in protest when the National Anthem was not sung at the beginning of his address—a break from tradition, where the state anthem Tamil Thai Valthu is played at the start, and the National Anthem at the end. In 2023, Ravi refused to deliver the customary address, claiming the draft speech included misleading content.
The previous year, he omitted references to BR Ambedkar, Periyar, CN Annadurai, the term “Dravidian Model,” and certain comments on Tamil Nadu’s law and order situation.
