Supreme Court rebukes TN Governor, clears 10 withheld bills

In a landmark judgment reinforcing constitutional boundaries and democratic principles, the Supreme Court on April 8 struck down Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi’s decision to reserve 10 state legislative Bills for the President's consideration, calling the move “erroneous and illegal.”

The court also ruled that any subsequent steps taken by the President in this regard “do not survive.”

A bench comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan delivered the sharp rebuke, underlining that the Governor had violated constitutional conventions by delaying assent to Bills that had been duly reconsidered and passed by the Tamil Nadu Assembly. Exercising its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the court declared that the 10 Bills in question “shall be deemed to have received assent.”

Governor not above will of people

Reiterating the role of the Governor as a constitutional head and not a political actor, the bench emphasized:

“The Governor must act with due deference to the settled conventions of parliamentary democracy, respecting the will of the people expressed through the legislature and the elected government.”

The court criticized what it described as “scant respect” shown by the Governor to previous judicial directions and parliamentary norms, stressing that governors are expected to be neutral facilitators, not roadblocks to the functioning of elected governments.

“The Governor, before assuming office, undertakes an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. Any deviation from this constitutional responsibility undermines the rule of law,” the bench stated.

Setting boundaries: a timeline for assent

The judgment laid down a specific timeline for Governors to act on Bills under Article 200 of the Constitution. Notably:

• A Governor must act on reconsidered Bills within one month.
• In cases where the Governor decides to reserve a Bill for Presidential assent (against the advice of the Council of Ministers), the decision must be made within three months.
• Once a Bill is re-presented after being returned by the Governor, it cannot be reserved again—unless it is substantially different from the original version.

The court made it clear that the Governor is constitutionally bound to act on the advice of the Council of Ministers, except in narrow exceptions defined by the Constitution. Furthermore, it asserted that any exercise of discretion under Article 200 is subject to judicial review.

Democracy, not discretion

Cautioning against politically motivated interference, the bench warned:

“The Governor must not create roadblocks or chokehold the state legislature to thwart the will of the people for political edge.”

The court concluded by underscoring the principle that constitutional authorities must always be guided by the values of the Constitution — not personal or political leanings. The Tamil Nadu government had approached the Supreme Court after the Governor failed to act on several Bills, the oldest of which dated back to January 2020.

This verdict sets a significant precedent, potentially impacting gubernatorial conduct across the country and reinforcing the primacy of elected legislatures in India's federal democracy.