Supreme Court pulls up TN Governor for delay in giving assent to 10 Bills, declares them as passed

The Supreme Court on Monday, 8 April, held that Tamil Nadu Governor Dr RN Ravi acted contrary to constitutional principles by withholding assent to 10 Bills—some pending since January 2020—and later referring them to the President after the State Assembly re-enacted them. Live Law reported that the apex court declared the Governor’s action "illegal and erroneous" in law and set it aside.

A bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan concluded that the Governor's conduct lacked bona fides. The judgment noted that Dr Ravi delayed taking action on the Bills for an extended period and referred them to the President only after the apex court’s verdict in the Punjab Governor’s case, which clarified that Governors cannot indefinitely sit on legislation passed by the Assembly.

The court added, "The 10 Bills shall be deemed to be clear from the date it was re-presented to the Governor."

The court reiterated that there is no provision for an "absolute veto" or "pocket veto" under the Indian Constitution, the Live Law article said.

In a first of its kind direction, the Supreme Court fixed a timeline within which a Governor has to act on Bills passed by the state legislature.

The bench said in case of withholding assent on a Bill and reserving it for President with the aid and advice of the council of ministers, the maximum period would be one month.

In case the Governor decided to withhold assent without the aid and advice of the council of ministers, the Bills must be returned to the assembly within three months.

Citing Article 200, the apex court underlined that a Governor must either assent to a Bill, withhold assent, or reserve it for the President—but such reservation can only occur at the first instance. Once a Bill is passed again by the legislature, the Governor cannot refer it to the President, unless the revised version differs substantively from the original.

The court also dismissed the Attorney General’s argument that the Assembly could not re-enact the Bills because the Governor had withheld assent without returning them. It held that withholding assent without sending the Bills back for reconsideration was procedurally flawed. The first proviso to Article 200, the court noted, is not an independent power—it must be exercised alongside the main clause, meaning any decision to withhold assent should be followed by returning the Bill to the Assembly.

In a strongly worded observation, the bench reminded Governors of their constitutional obligations:

"We are not diminishing the Governor’s office. However, Governors must adhere to the democratic principles that underpin our parliamentary system. The will of the people, as represented by the legislature and elected government, must be respected. A Governor should act as a friend, philosopher, and guide—dispassionately, and with wisdom, not political motive. He must facilitate governance, not obstruct it."

The court emphasised that Governors, as constitutional heads, must avoid political interference and work in cooperation with the elected State machinery.

“The Governor must not hinder or paralyse legislative processes for political ends. Legislators, elected by the people, are better placed to represent public interests. Any contrary approach undermines the spirit of the Constitution,” the judgment stated.

It further underscored that all constitutional authorities must be guided by constitutional values rather than transient political considerations. The ruling called upon such officials to introspect whether their decisions truly reflect the ideals enshrined in the Constitution.

Justice Pardiwala concluded the landmark ruling by invoking Dr BR Ambedkar’s words:
“However good a Constitution may be, if those who are implementing it are not good, it will prove to be bad.”

This judgment is expected to have wide implications for Centre-State relations and sets a clear precedent on the role and limits of gubernatorial discretion within the constitutional framework.

Welcoming the Supreme Court verdict, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M K Stalin hailed it as "historic" and a victory for all state governments.

The SC ruled the Bills are now considered having been given the Governor's assent, Stalin told the Assembly, shortly after the apex court's order.

"We thank and welcome today’s historic judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, reaffirming the legislative rights of State Legislatures and putting an end to the trend of Union government-nominated Governors stalling progressive legislative reforms in Opposition-ruled states," Stalin, also the DMK President, said in a social media post.

"The Constitution mandates Governor to approve the bills once adopted for the second time but he didn't. He was also delaying...," Stalin said, adding the state government moved the SC against this.

The SC accepted the state government's just arguments and ruled "it has to be considered as the Governor having given his assent", he said.

"This verdict is a victory not just for Tamil Nadu but all state governments in India," Stalin said.

"This is another crucial step in restoring balance in Union–State relations and a landmark victory in Tamil Nadu’s continuous struggle to usher in a truly federal India. My congratulations to the people of Tamil Nadu and our legal team!," the chief minister said in a social media post.

With PTI Inputs