The court emphasised that Governors must act solely based on the advice of the Council of Ministers headed by the elected state government, and cannot act at their own discretion.
Published Apr 08, 2025 | 11:57 AM ⚊ Updated Apr 08, 2025 | 12:11 PM
Supreme Court hears Tamil Nadu government's case against Governor RN Ravi. (Supplied)
Synopsis: The Supreme Court ruled that state Governors do not possess any authority to sit indefinitely on bills passed by Legislative Assemblies without making a decision. The Tamil Nadu government filed the petition raising concerns over the Governor’s actions in withholding assent to Bills without providing any explanation.
In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court on Tuesday, 8 April, ruled that state Governors do not possess any authority to sit indefinitely on bills passed by Legislative Assemblies without making a decision.
The court emphasised that Governors must act solely based on the advice of the Council of Ministers headed by the elected state government, and cannot act at their own discretion.
The ruling, by a Supreme Court bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, comes as a major setback to Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi.
It held that it was illegal for the Governor to send a bill, which had been re-passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly for the second time, directly to the President of India without taking appropriate action himself.
“Governor must be conscious to not create any roadblock,” said Justice Pardiwala.
J Pardiwala ended pronouncing the judgement by quoting Dr BR Ambedkar, “However good a Constitution may be, if those who are implementing it are not good, it will prove to be bad.”
Following the judgement, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin termed it a historic one and said it was a major triumph for all state governments across India.
The Supreme Court affirmed that a government is formed by the will of the people and that Governors must not obstruct the implementation of policies and initiatives introduced by such democratically elected governments.
It stressed that the Governor’s role is not to interfere but to act in accordance with the advice of the elected administration, upholding the true spirit of the Constitution.
Highlighting constitutional principles, the court made it clear that Governors cannot exercise powers that are not provided under the Constitution to delay or obstruct the legislative process.
In a historic first, in the case filed by the Tamil Nadu government against its Governor, the Supreme Court set a specific timeline for the Governor to act on pending bills — a move never seen before, as courts had traditionally refrained from imposing deadlines on Governors in such matters.
This verdict marks a major victory for elected state governments, reinforcing the constitutional mandate that Governors must act promptly and in accordance with the advice of the democratically elected government.
The Tamil Nadu government filed the petition raising concerns over the Governor’s actions in withholding assent to Bills without providing any explanation.
The state argued that the Governor acted unconstitutionally by sending re-passed Bills to the President instead of granting assent. The court questioned the legality of this move and reiterated the importance of adhering to constitutional provisions.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the Tamil Nadu government, had argued that the Governor’s actions violated the Constitution.
“The Governor must act based on the advice of the Council of Ministers. He cannot exercise absolute discretion,” he asserted.
The state claims that the Bills, after being sent to the Governor for assent, were returned without clarification. Assuming they were returned for reconsideration, the Tamil Nadu Assembly re-passed the Bills and sent them back to the Governor. However, the Governor’s counsel argued otherwise.
The timeline outlined by the state includes the Governor returning the Bills on 13 November 2023, the Assembly re-passing them on 18 November 2023, and the Governor forwarding the bills to the President on 28 November 2023, instead of giving assent.
Singhvi referenced the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Punjab case, which stated that Governors must act within a reasonable timeframe and that withholding assent indefinitely is unconstitutional. The state argued that according to the Constitution, the Governor cannot withhold assent indefinitely or send a re-passed Bill to the President.
During the hearing, the Governor’s counsel argued that as per constitutional provisions, the Governor has the authority to approve, withhold, or forward Bills to the President. They contended that the Governor cannot be expected to blindly approve all Bills without scrutiny.
Speaking in the Tamil Nadu Assembly, Stalin said, “A historic judgment has just been delivered by the Supreme Court. In this Legislative Assembly, we had passed several important Bills and sent them to the Governor for assent. Instead of granting assent, the Governor returned them. In response, we passed those bills once again and sent them back.”
Stalin said that although the Constitution mandated the Governor to give assent to bills passed for the second time by the Legislative Assembly, he delayed granting assent and claimed that he had the authority to do so.
“Challenging this, the Government of Tamil Nadu approached the Supreme Court. Today, accepting the arguments put forth by the Tamil Nadu Government, the Supreme Court has delivered a historic verdict, declaring that the Governor’s withholding of assent was unconstitutional and that the Bills should be deemed to have received assent,” he said.
“This landmark judgment is not just a victory for Tamil Nadu, but a major triumph for all state governments across India. It reinforces the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam’s (DMK’s) core principle of ‘State Autonomy within a Federal Framework’ — a philosophy for which Tamil Nadu continues to fight and in which Tamil Nadu continues to prevail,” he added.
(Edited by Muhammed Fazil with inputs from Subash Chandra Bose.)
