custom-ads

Leaders hail ‘historic’ SC verdict, call for TN Governor Ravi’s resignation gets louder

The Supreme Court ruled against Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi’s action of reserving 10 bills, declaring it illegal. The verdict reinforced state legislative rights and set strict timelines for Governors to grant assent

South First Desk

Published Apr 08, 2025 | 5:41 PM ⚊ Updated Apr 08, 2025 | 5:41 PM

Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi and Chief Minister MK Stalin.

Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi and Chief Minister MK Stalin.

Synopsis: The Supreme Court ruled against Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi withholding assent to 10 Bills, declaring it illegal. The court affirmed the legislative rights of state assemblies, setting clear timelines for governors to act on Bills, mandating assent within one to three months, and prohibiting indefinite delays. The ruling evoked widespread reactions across India.

The Supreme Court of India’s landmark ruling against Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi withholding 10 Bills has evoked widespread reactions from political leaders, legal experts, and social activists across India.

The court declared that the governor’s withholding of assent was illegal, and affirmed the legislative rights of state assemblies. It also set clear timelines for governors to act on Bills forwarded to them, mandating assent within one to three months and prohibiting indefinite delays. 

The court invoked its powers under Article 142, validating the 10 Bills passed by the Tamil Nadu Assembly.

Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court the authority to enforce decrees and orders to ensure complete justice in any matter pending before it. The decrees and orders hold enforceability across the entire country and guarantee their uniform application throughout India.

Key points from the judgment :

  • Reserving 10 bills for Presidential consideration after they were reconsidered by the State Assembly is illegal.
  • Any actions taken by the President regarding the 10 bills are deemed void.
  • The court invoked Article 142, making all 10 Bills effective from the date they were sent to the governor for assent.
  • The governor must grant assent to a Bill presented after re-consultation in the state Assembly unless the Bill is altered.
  • If the governor withholds assent and reserves the Bill for the President, it can only be for a maximum of one month.
  • If assent is withheld without the aid and advice of the council of ministers, the Bill must be returned within three months.
  • If a Bill is presented after reconsideration by the state Assembly, the governor must assent within one month.
  • The governor must act on the aid and advice of the council of ministers, except for Bills under the second proviso of Article 200, and those concerning Articles 31, 32, etc.
  • The governor’s actions under Article 200 are subject to judicial review

Also Read: Big win for Tamil Nadu against Governor RN Ravi

Political reactions

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin hailed the verdict as “historic.”

Speaking in the state assembly, Stalin emphasised that the judgment reinforced the supremacy of the legislature over the governor’s actions. “Today, the Supreme Court has delivered a historic verdict, declaring that the governor’s withholding of assent was unconstitutional,” he said.

Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan also lauded the judgment, calling it a “historic reaffirmation of federal principles.” 

He stressed that the verdict upheld the power of elected legislatures and sent a strong message against political interference by governors. Vijayan pointed to the judgment as a vindication of Kerala’s ongoing legal battle to protect democratic rights.

Tamil Nadu Deputy Chief Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision, stating that the ruling had brought national attention to the issue. 

He described it as a victory for all states, asserting that the court’s decision had clarified the governor’s role and limitations in withholding assent.

“This is not just a victory for Tamil Nadu, but a win for all states across the country,” he remarked.

Support from political parties

The Communist Party of India (Marxist) celebrated the verdict, calling it a “slap on the face” of the Modi government. 

The party’s official X account stated, “We welcome the Supreme Court’s historic verdict declaring as illegal and arbitrary the act of the Governor withholding consent for President for 10 Bills passed by Tamil Nadu Assembly.” The CPI(M) also highlighted similar issues faced by non-BJP-ruled states under the current governance.

Congress MP Sasikanth Senthil criticised the misuse of the governor’s office, stating that the judgment was a “slap on the face” of the Modi government for undermining opposition-ruled states.

He emphasised that the verdict restores balance to India’s federal structure, preventing governors from acting as political tools.

Also Read: How Supreme Court described TN Governor Ravi’s actions

Social activists react

Social activist Prashant Kanojia also chimed in, criticising Governor Ravi for stalling the decisions of the elected Tamil Nadu government.

“This is not gubernatorial discretion, it’s sabotage,” he said, calling for the governor’s resignation.

Journalist Radhakrishnan RK expressed similar sentiments, stating that if Ravi had any shame, he should resign following the Supreme Court’s rebuke. He criticised the governor’s actions as an embarrassment to both the BJP and himself, especially given his background as a former IPS officer.

The Supreme Court’s judgment has struck a chord across India, with a strong consensus forming around the importance of upholding democratic and federal principles. 

The ruling not only addresses the immediate issue in Tamil Nadu but sets an important precedent for the functioning of state governments across the country, reinforcing the legislative authority of elected assemblies and curbing political interference from Governors.

(Compiled by Ananya Rao).

Follow us