custom-ads

‘Neither Governor nor President has absolute veto’: Landmark judgement on RN Ravi explained

Between 2020 and 2023, the Tamil Nadu Assembly passed 12 Bills. After prolonged delay, Governor Ravi returned 10, later referring them to the President even after they were re-enacted without amendments

South First Desk

Published Apr 12, 2025 | 3:45 PM ⚊ Updated Apr 23, 2025 | 8:44 PM

Supreme Court RN Ravi

Supreme Court hears Tamil Nadu government's case against Governor RN Ravi. (Supplied)

Synopsis: The Supreme Court, in a late-night release of the judgment on April 11, 2025, declared Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi’s delay and withholding of assent to 10 re-passed Bills as “erroneous in law and non-est.” It also struck down related actions by President Droupadi Murmu. The verdict follows Ravi’s unexplained return of the Bills after prolonged inaction between 2020 and 2023

Late on Friday night, 11 April, 2025, the Supreme Court released its much-awaited judgment declaring Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi’s prolonged delay in granting assent to 10 re-passed Bills as “erroneous in law and non-est.” The Court also annulled subsequent actions taken by President Droupadi Murmu concerning these Bills. 

Following the Supreme Court’s order, Tamil Nadu government on Saturday, 12 April, notified as ‘law’ the 10 bills that were previously withheld by Governor RN Ravi. The move sets the precedence for notifying laws without assent of the Governor or President by a state government.

Background

Between January 2020 and April 2023, the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly passed 12 Bills and forwarded them to Governor Ravi for assent. 

After a significant delay, on 13 November, 2023, the Governor returned 10 of these Bills with a brief note withholding assent, providing no further explanation. 

In response, the Assembly convened a special session on 18 November, 2023, to re-enact the Bills without amendments and sent them back to the Governor. 

However, on 28 November, 2023, the Governor referred these Bills to President Murmu for consideration, effectively prolonging the legislative process. 

Also Read: Tamil Nadu’s tussle with its Governors

Supreme Court’s findings

A Bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan examined the constitutional aspects of the Governor’s actions. 

The Court noted that the Governor’s inaction over an extended period, followed by withholding assent and referring the Bills to the President, demonstrated a lack of respect for the Supreme Court’s directives regarding the aid and advice of the State’s Council of Ministers. 

This conduct indicated the influence of “extraneous considerations” in the discharge of his functions. 

Key points from the Judgment

  • Challenge to presidential withholding of assent: The Court held that when a State Bill is reserved by the Governor for the President’s consideration, the President’s decision to withhold assent can be judicially reviewed, especially if exercised arbitrarily or in bad faith.
  • Governor’s discretion post re-passage of bills: Once the State Assembly re-passes a Bill, the Governor’s discretion to withhold assent is limited. The Governor must either grant assent or return the Bill with a message suggesting amendments. Indefinite withholding of assent is not constitutionally permissible.
  • Obligation to communicate reasons: The President is constitutionally required to provide reasons for withholding assent to Bills reserved by the Governor. These reasons must be communicated to the State Government to facilitate transparency and allow for possible amendments or reconsiderations.
  • Time limit for presidential action: If the President does not act on a Bill within a reasonable timeframe, the State Government is entitled to seek a writ of mandamus from the Supreme Court to compel action.
  • No absolute veto power: The Court emphasised that neither the Governor nor the President possesses an “absolute veto” to indefinitely withhold assent to Bills. Such unbridled power contradicts the constitutional framework and the principles of parliamentary democracy.
  • Presumption of lack of bona fides: In the absence of communicated reasons for withholding assent, courts may presume a lack of bona fides on the part of the President, warranting judicial intervention.
  • Recommendation for pre-legislative consultation: To prevent future disputes, the Court recommended that State Governments engage in pre-legislative consultations with the Central Government on Bills requiring presidential assent. This practice would promote transparency and cooperation between the Union and State administrations.

(Edited by Ananya Rao)

Follow us