SC’s Landmark Ruling on Tamil Nadu Governor’s Powers: What It Means for Indian Federalism

In a historic decision reflecting the growing constitutional tension between State governments and Raj Bhavans, the Supreme Court of India ruled that Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi acted illegally by delaying assent to 10 Bills passed and re-passed by the Tamil Nadu Assembly. This judgment comes at a time when several non-BJP ruled states are increasingly alleging misuse of Governor’s discretion to obstruct democratic governance. The ruling sets crucial limits on gubernatorial power and reaffirms legislative supremacy in a federal setup.

Supreme Court Reins in the Governor’s Discretionary Powers

• The Tamil Nadu government accused Governor Ravi of indefinitely sitting on 12 Bills passed between 2020 and 2023, many of which aimed to curb the Governor’s role in university administration by transferring powers to the state government.
• Despite re-passing 10 of these Bills in a special Assembly session in November 2023, the Governor referred them to the President, instead of granting assent, leading to a constitutional standoff.
• The Supreme Court termed the reservation of these Bills for the President as “erroneous in law” and declared that the Governor’s role in such cases is not discretionary once a Bill is re-passed without amendments.
• The Court invoked Article 142 to deem the 10 Bills as having received assent on the day they were re-submitted, emphasizing the principle of complete justice.
• It also issued a mandatory timeline: Governors must act on Bills within 1 to 3 months depending on the nature of action — assent, return, or reservation.
• Importantly, the Court reaffirmed that Governors are bound by Article 163, which requires them to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, leaving no scope for a “pocket veto” or absolute veto.
• The Court emphasized the Governor must serve as a catalyst, not an inhibitor, and must act with expedition and constitutional fidelity.

Historical Context and Judicial Precedents on Governor’s Role

• The 1974 Shamsher Singh v State of Punjab judgment clarified that the Governor is generally bound by the advice of the elected government.
• In Rameshwar Prasad v Union of India (2006), the Court ruled that the Governor’s personal opinion cannot justify President’s Rule, restricting arbitrary action.
• The 2016 Nabam Rebia case stated that the power to summon the Assembly is not solely the Governor’s prerogative, adding another layer of checks on Raj Bhavan powers.
• In the 2023 Punjab case, the Supreme Court directly reprimanded the Governor for acting outside his constitutional limits, reinforcing the principle that real power lies with elected representatives in a parliamentary democracy.
• The recent Tamil Nadu verdict builds upon these decisions and goes a step further by prescribing specific time limits for the Governor’s actions under Article 200.

Timeline of Events: Tamil Nadu’s Legal Battle for Legislative Supremacy

• The confrontation began between Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi and Chief Minister M.K. Stalin’s government soon after Ravi assumed office in 2021.
• Between January 2020 and April 2023, the Tamil Nadu Assembly passed 12 significant Bills, many aimed at removing the Governor’s role in appointing Vice-Chancellors of state universities.
• Governor Ravi refused to grant assent or act on these Bills, prompting the Tamil Nadu government to accuse him of deliberate obstruction of state governance.
• When the issue reached a breaking point, the Assembly re-passed 10 of the Bills in November 2023, and sent them back for assent.
• Instead of approving them, Governor Ravi sent all 10 Bills to the President, prompting the state to approach the Supreme Court under Article 32.
• On April 8, 2025, the Court declared that the Governor’s actions violated constitutional provisions, especially Articles 200 and 163.
• The ruling prescribed that once the Assembly re-passes a Bill, the Governor must grant assent within one month, unless the Bill is substantially altered.

The 10 Key Bills Deemed Assented by the Court

• Tamil Nadu Fisheries University (Amendment) Bill, 2020 – proposed structural and administrative changes and renamed the university after former CM J. Jayalalithaa.
• Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University (Amendment) Bill, 2020 – gave government enhanced inspection powers.
• Tamil Nadu Universities Laws (Amendment) Bills (2022, 2023) – transferred power to appoint Vice-Chancellors from the Governor to the State.
• Tamil Nadu Siddha Medical University Bill, 2022 – established a new university near Chennai.
• The Tamil Nadu Agricultural University (Amendment) Bill, 2022 and Tamil Nadu Dr M.G.R. Medical University (Amendment) Bill, 2022 – empowered the state to appoint V-Cs.
• Tamil University (Second Amendment) Bill, 2022 – reduced the Governor’s role in administration.
• The Dr. Ambedkar Law University and Anna University Amendment Bills also sought to assert government control over institutional appointments.
• All these Bills collectively weakened the Governor’s control over higher education and strengthened the autonomy of the state government.

Wider Political and Legal Reactions to the Supreme Court Verdict

• Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin hailed the ruling as a “historic victory” not just for Tamil Nadu, but for all State governments in India. He asserted that the judgment reaffirmed the principles of federalism and State autonomy.
• Kerala leaders immediately welcomed the verdict and requested the Chief Justice of India to assign their pending case against Governor Arif Mohammad Khan to the same bench, citing similar delays on seven Bills.
• Political parties, including the Pattali Makkal Katchi (PMK) and the Congress, celebrated the decision as a check on what they termed the “overreach” of Governors in opposition-ruled States.
• In contrast, BJP leaders maintained that the Governor had acted within constitutional limits, even as the Court disagreed.
• The ruling sparked renewed demands in other states like West Bengal, Punjab, and Telangana, where State governments have also moved the Court against their respective Governors for sitting on crucial Bills.
• The verdict strengthens the judicial trend of discouraging central interference via gubernatorial inaction, reinforcing the idea that Governors are not parallel power centers, but constitutional figureheads.

Constitutional Framework: Understanding Articles 163 and 200

• Article 163: It stipulates that the Governor must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, except in situations where the Constitution expressly gives the Governor discretion.
  • The Court clarified that withholding or reserving assent does not fall under such discretionary exceptions unless the Bill is different from its earlier version.
• Article 200: Provides the Governor with three options when a Bill is presented:
  • Assent to the Bill.
  • Withhold assent, in which case the Bill must be returned with recommendations.
  • Reserve the Bill for President’s consideration.
• The first proviso to Article 200 mandates that if the legislature re-passes a Bill, the Governor shall not withhold assent.
• The Court emphasized that “as soon as possible” cannot mean indefinite delay and interpreted it as a maximum of one month for action on re-passed Bills.
• This interpretation ends the possibility of “pocket vetoes”, where Governors stall governance by simply not acting.

Timelines Prescribed by the Supreme Court for Governor’s Assent

• The Supreme Court laid down clear timeframes for Governors to act under Article 200, thereby reducing scope for ambiguity:
  • One month to grant or withhold assent to a Bill on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
  • Three months to return a Bill or reserve it for the President contrary to the advice of the State Cabinet.
  • One month to grant assent after a Bill is re-passed by the Assembly.
• The Court clarified that these limits are not suggestive, but mandatory, and any deviation could invite judicial scrutiny.
• This ruling creates a uniform standard applicable across all Indian States, preventing selective or political misuse of constitutional powers by Governors.
• It also confirms that any inaction or delay without valid constitutional reason amounts to a breach of the Governor’s constitutional duty.

Implications for Other Indian States and the Federal Structure

• The verdict is already influencing similar ongoing cases in:
  • Kerala, where 6 Bills are pending with the Governor for over two years.
  • Punjab, where the Governor had questioned the legality of Assembly sessions to avoid granting assent.
  • Telangana, where 10 Bills passed by the Assembly were not acted upon by the Governor for months.
  • West Bengal, where the Governor delayed assent on 8 Bills, especially those related to university administration reforms.
  • Karnataka, where files related to cooperative reforms and prosecution sanctions are pending with the Governor.
• The ruling sends a strong message that Governors are constitutional custodians, not political actors.
• It protects the principle of federalism, where the will of elected State Assemblies must prevail over unelected appointees.
• The Court reaffirmed that the spirit of democracy and the rule of law must govern all constitutional offices, including that of the Governor.

Role of Article 142 in the Verdict and its Broader Significance

• The Supreme Court invoked Article 142, which allows it to pass any order necessary to do “complete justice” in a case.
• By using this rare constitutional power, the Court deemed the 10 Tamil Nadu Bills to have received assent, overriding the Governor’s delay and setting aside the President’s response to the reservation of Bills.
• This use of Article 142 is highly significant, as it shows the Court’s willingness to directly intervene when constitutional functionaries fail to perform their duties.
• The Court justified this by citing the “scant respect” shown by the Governor to previous rulings and the undue delay in action.
• It emphasized that such power is not to be used lightly but is essential when the democratic process is threatened by constitutional inaction.
• This also serves as a precedent for other cases where institutional delays undermine legislative or executive authority, empowering Courts to enforce constitutional accountability.

Redefining the Governor’s Role in a Federal Democracy

• The verdict redefines the Governor’s role from a passive actor who can stall governance, to one who must act in service of the people’s will.
• It strongly asserts that the Governor is not a rival power center, but a symbolic head who must act on constitutional advice, not personal views or political preferences.
• The Court reminded Governors to act as “friends, philosophers, and guides”, not obstructors of elected governments.
• Citing Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the judgment noted that the Constitution’s success depends not just on its text, but on the conduct of those entrusted with its implementation.
• By setting guardrails, the judgment seeks to restore balance in Centre–State relations, strengthen democratic institutions, and protect the legislative autonomy of States.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in the Tamil Nadu case is a powerful reaffirmation of India’s federal structure and democratic ethos. It curbs arbitrary use of gubernatorial power and ensures that elected State governments are not subverted by constitutional delays. With timelines, clarity, and constitutional fidelity, this ruling paves the way for healthier Centre–State relations rooted in mutual respect, rule of law, and cooperative federalism.

Practice Questions (250 words)

1. How does the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Articles 200 and 142 in the Tamil Nadu Governor’s case impact the balance of power in Indian federalism?
2. Examine the constitutional limitations placed on the Governor’s discretion in the context of State legislation following recent judicial pronouncements.