In a far-reaching order that would take away the powers, the SC said Governors should act with prudence in clearing the Bills passed by the State Assemblies and not sit on them indefinitely for a longer period.
The apex court on April 8 declared ‘as erroneous and illegal the action’ of Tamil Nadu Governor R. N. Ravi in reserving 10 Bills for the consideration of the President in November last year after their due reconsideration by the State Assembly.
On February 10, a division bench of Justices Pardiwala and Mahadevan had reserved judgment on the writ petitions filed by the Tamil Nadu Government against Governor Dr RN Ravi withholding assent for the Bills, the oldest of them pending since January 2020.
A bench of Justices J. B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan also laid down the timeline for Governors to decide on Bills presented to them. The judges said, “We are in no way undermining the office of the Governor. All we say is that the Governor must act with due deference to the settled conventions of parliamentary democracy, respecting the will of the people being expressed through the legislature as well as the elected government responsible to the people. He must perform his role of a friend, philosopher and guide with dispassion guided not by considerations of political expedience but by the sanctity of the constitutional oath he undertakes.”
Tamil Nadu Government counsel Rakesh Dwivedi says, “The most important part of today’s judgement is that this court not only set aside the action of the Governor, in reserving the Bills and sending to the President, after the Bills had been passed a second time by the legislature of TN, it has not only been set aside, but this court has exercised its powers under Article 142 and directed that all the ten Bills will be deemed to have obtained the assent of the Governor, so they don’t need to go back to the Governor, they have become the Acts of TN.”
VIDEO | On Supreme Court order on Tamil Nadu Governor, advocate of Tamil Nadu government Rakesh Dwivedi says, "The most important part of today's judgement is that this court not only set aside the action of the Governor, in reserving the Bills and sending to the President, after… pic.twitter.com/GuCKgWd30q
— Press Trust of India (@PTI_News) April 8, 2025
The apex court made it clear, “The Governor does not have the authority to sit indefinitely on Bills and must act within the framework laid out in Article 200 of the Constitution. The top court said that the Governor must take a decision within three months, either to assent to a Bill, return it to the House, or refer it to the President.”
Though, it is called a victory for DMK as the Bills pave way for the Chief Minister becoming Chancellor, replacing the Governor. So it can appoint VCs without consulting the Governor of its choice.
Hailing the decision of the top court, CM Stalin said, “We thank and welcome today’s historic judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, reaffirming the legislative rights of State Legislatures and putting an end to the trend of Union government-nominated Governors stalling progressive legislative reforms in Opposition-ruled states. This is another crucial step in restoring balance in Union–State relations and a landmark victory in Tamil Nadu’s continuous struggle to usher in a truly federal India.”
We thank and welcome today’s historic judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, reaffirming the legislative rights of State Legislatures and putting an end to the trend of Union government-nominated Governors stalling progressive legislative reforms in Opposition-ruled states.
This… pic.twitter.com/6QoEOY4t2Q
— M.K.Stalin (@mkstalin) April 8, 2025
Reacting to the verdict, DMK spokesperson TKS. Elangovan, in an interview to a news agency, says, “Governor is only the constitutional head of the state, not the elected head. When a Bill is passed by State legislation, the Governor has to approve it. If he finds some legal issues with the Bill, he can seek clarification immediately. He has to say why he is returning the Bill or holding it. This Governor did not do anything, that is what the Supreme Court has said.”
While speaking with lawyers, some expressed a differing view, suggesting that the Centre should consider filing an appeal. They argued that the Supreme Court’s judicial overreach and assumption of executive functions is not acceptable.
