New Delhi: In a groundbreaking verdict that reverberates across India’s federal structure, the Supreme Court has ruled that Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi’s prolonged delay in granting assent to 10 state legislature bills was “illegal” and “erroneous in law.” Delivered on April 8, 2025, this landmark decision not only resolves a three-year-long constitutional standoff between the Tamil Nadu government and its Governor but also establishes strict timelines for Governors’ actions under Article 200 of the Constitution. With implications for opposition-ruled states like Kerala, Punjab, and West Bengal, this ruling strengthens the legislative authority of elected state governments while curbing discretionary overreach by Governors.
The Core Issue: Governor’s Role Under Article 200
Article 200 of the Indian Constitution outlines the Governor’s responsibilities when a bill, passed by a state legislature, is presented for assent. The Governor has four options: grant assent, withhold assent, return the bill (if not a money bill) for reconsideration, or reserve it for the President’s consideration. However, ambiguity in the phrase “as soon as possible” has historically allowed Governors to delay decisions, effectively stalling state legislation—a practice critics call a “pocket veto.”
In Tamil Nadu’s case, Governor R.N. Ravi withheld assent to 10 bills for over three years, prompting the state government, led by the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), to file a writ petition in 2023. The state argued that this inaction paralyzed its legislative agenda and undermined democratic governance. The Supreme Court, invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 142 to ensure “complete justice,” stepped in to address this constitutional crisis.
The Supreme Court’s Ruling: A Game-Changer
A two-judge bench, comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan, delivered a unanimous verdict that dismantled the Governor’s defense and set a new legal benchmark. Here are the key highlights:
- No Absolute or Pocket Veto: The court explicitly ruled that Governors do not possess an “absolute veto” (withholding assent outright) or a “pocket veto” (delaying indefinitely). Justice Pardiwala emphasized that Article 200’s mandate of acting “as soon as possible” reflects urgency, not discretion.
- Mandatory Timelines: For the first time, the Supreme Court prescribed specific deadlines for Governors’ actions under Article 200:
- One Month: To withhold assent or reserve a bill for the President when acting on the Council of Ministers’ advice.
- Three Months: To return a bill to the legislature or reserve it for the President if acting contrary to ministerial advice.
- One Month: To grant assent to a bill re-presented after reconsideration by the legislature.
- Failure to adhere to these timelines opens the Governor’s inaction to judicial review, ensuring accountability.
- No Discretion Post-Reconsideration: If a bill is returned to the legislature and re-passed (with or without amendments), the Governor must grant assent within one month. Reserving such a bill for the President, as Governor Ravi did, was deemed illegal unless the re-presented bill significantly differs from the original.
- Aid and Advice Binding: The court reaffirmed that Governors must act on the “aid and advice” of the Council of Ministers, except in rare cases involving bills affecting High Court or Supreme Court powers. Discretionary power, a relic of the Government of India Act, 1935, was deliberately excluded from Article 200, signaling the framers’ intent to limit gubernatorial overreach.
- Article 142 in Action: Citing the Governor’s “scant respect” for prior judicial precedents and his “not bona fide” delay, the court declared the 10 Tamil Nadu bills as having received assent on the date they were re-presented. This bold move effectively nullified any subsequent Presidential actions on these bills, labeling them “non-est” (void) in law.
The Tamil Nadu Context: A Constitutional Tug-of-War
The dispute traces back to 2020-2022, when the Tamil Nadu legislature passed bills on critical issues—ranging from education reforms to prisoner releases—that Governor Ravi either delayed or reserved for Presidential consideration. After the legislature re-enacted these bills, Ravi persisted in withholding assent, prompting Tamil Nadu to accuse him of sabotaging its governance. Representing the state, senior advocates Rakesh Dwivedi, A.M. Singhvi, Mukul Rohatgi, and P. Wilson argued that this amounted to an unconstitutional veto by an unelected official over a democratically elected government.
The Governor, defended by Attorney General R. Venkataramani and Additional Solicitor General Vikramjeet Banerjee, countered that Article 200 granted him discretion, including the right to refer bills to the President without time constraints. Venkataramani argued that once the President withheld assent, the bills “fell,” absolving the Governor of further obligation. The court, however, rejected this, noting that such a stance created a “political thicket” and undermined legislative supremacy.
Justice Pardiwala’s opening remarks captured the tension: “While the framers envisioned the Governor as a sagacious counselor to pour oil over troubled waters, what has unfolded is quite the opposite. This Court has been called upon to calm the troubled waters stirred by this constitutional battle.”
Implications Beyond Tamil Nadu
This ruling sends shockwaves to other opposition-ruled states facing similar gubernatorial roadblocks:
- Kerala: A pending Supreme Court case challenges Governor Arif Mohammed Khan’s delay on six bills, some stalled for over two years.
- Punjab: The 2023 State of Punjab vs Governor ruling, which this verdict builds upon, had already curtailed Governor Banwarilal Purohit’s delays.
- Telangana: Over 10 bills await assent from former Governor Tamilisai Soundararajan, some pending since 2022.
- West Bengal: Governor-Government friction over legislative delays mirrors Tamil Nadu’s saga.
Legal experts predict that the prescribed timelines and the court’s assertion of judicial oversight will deter Governors from exploiting constitutional ambiguities, bolstering state autonomy in India’s federal framework.
A Constitutional Philosophy: Harmony Over Conflict
Justice Pardiwala’s parting remarks underscored the Governor’s role as a “friend, philosopher, and guide,” not a political adversary. Quoting Dr. B.R. Ambedkar—“However good a Constitution may be, if those who are implementing it are not good, it will prove to be bad”—he urged Governors to uphold their constitutional oath and work in harmony with state governments. “The Governor must not be an inhibitor but a catalyst,” he added, signaling a call for constructive collaboration.
The court also clarified that its timelines do not “amend the Constitution” but enforce its inherent intent of expediency. This balance—preserving the Governor’s dignity while curbing misuse of power—marks the ruling as a nuanced yet firm intervention.
Public and Political Reactions
Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin hailed the verdict as a “victory for democracy,” accusing Governor Ravi of acting as a “proxy for the Centre.” Opposition parties, including Kerala’s CPI(M) and Punjab’s AAP, echoed this sentiment, viewing it as a check on the BJP-led Union Government’s alleged use of Governors to destabilize non-BJP states. Meanwhile, BJP leaders remained silent, though sources suggest the ruling may prompt a rethink of gubernatorial strategies.
Legal scholars praised the decision’s clarity. “By setting timelines and invoking Article 142, the court has plugged a long-standing loophole,” said constitutional expert Dr. Anirudh Menon. “It’s a win for federalism and legislative accountability.”
What’s Next?
The 10 Tamil Nadu bills—covering education, prison reforms, and public appointments—are now law, retroactively effective from their re-presentation dates. The ruling’s precedent will likely expedite resolutions in Kerala and other states, with the Supreme Court’s Kerala bench, led by Justice , expected to apply these timelines.
For Governors nationwide, the message is clear: delays will no longer be tolerated without judicial scrutiny. For state governments, it’s an empowerment to assert their legislative rights. And for India’s democracy, it’s a reaffirmation that constitutional functionaries must serve, not obstruct, the will of the people.
FAQs
1. What did the Supreme Court rule about Governors and bills under Article 200?
The Supreme Court ruled that Governors must act within specific time limits when handling bills passed by state legislatures under Article 200. They cannot indefinitely delay or withhold assent (a “pocket veto”) and must follow set deadlines: one month to withhold assent or reserve a bill for the President with ministerial advice, three months if acting against advice, and one month to grant assent to re-presented bills.
2. Why did the Supreme Court set time limits for Governors?
The court introduced time limits to prevent Governors from stalling state legislation, ensuring urgency as implied by the phrase “as soon as possible” in Article 200. This was in response to Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi’s delay of over three years on 10 bills, which the court deemed illegal and a threat to democratic governance.
3. What happens if a Governor doesn’t follow these time limits?
If a Governor fails to adhere to the prescribed timelines (e.g., one month for re-presented bills), their inaction becomes subject to judicial review. The Supreme Court can intervene, as it did in Tamil Nadu, declaring bills as assented to or setting aside illegal delays to ensure “complete justice” under Article 142.
4. How does this ruling affect Tamil Nadu’s 10 pending bills?
The Supreme Court declared that the 10 bills delayed by Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi are deemed to have received assent from the date they were re-presented after reconsideration. The court nullified his reservation of these bills for the President, calling it illegal, and effectively made them law.
5. Will this decision impact other states in India?
Yes, this ruling sets a precedent for all states, especially opposition-ruled ones like Kerala, Punjab, and Telangana, where Governors have delayed bills. The timelines and limits on gubernatorial discretion will guide pending cases, ensuring Governors act swiftly and in line with the state’s Council of Ministers’ advice.
