In a major ruling that addressed the growing tensions between elected state governments and appointed Governors, the Supreme Court on April 8 ruled that Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi, through his various actions, has violated constitutional values. Weighing in on the deadlock between the MK Stalin-led Tamil Nadu government and Governor Ravi, the verdict examined whether the Governor had overstepped his role by delaying assent to multiple bills, withholding sanctions for prosecution, and failing to act on files related to prisoner releases and key appointments.
Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan delivered the judgement on a petition filed by the Tamil Nadu government.
Here are a few takeaways from the judgement:
The Court opened with a reminder of the Governor’s intended role: “The framers of the Constitution envisioned the Governor as a ‘constitutional head, a sagacious counsellor and advisor to the Ministry’, someone who can ‘pour oil over troubled waters’... What has unfolded before us has been quite the opposite.”
The Court said it had been called upon to resolve a “long-drawn battle of a high constitutional order.”
2. Withholding assent without explanation violates Article 200
In November 2023, the Governor returned 10 bills with just one sentence: “I withhold assent.” The Court noted this did not comply with Article 200, which requires the Governor to send a message to the legislature for reconsideration. “He did not convey any message to the state legislature for reconsideration of the said bills as prescribed under the first provision to Article 200,” said the court.
After the Tamil Nadu Assembly repassed the same 10 bills in a special session, the Governor reserved them for the President, claiming repugnancy with central laws. The Court ruled this action was constitutionally impermissible. “Article 200 does not confer any power upon the Governor to exercise the option of reserving a bill for Presidential consideration after a bill has been reconsidered and repassed… The only constitutionally permissible option for the Governor was to grant assent.”
The Court strongly criticised the Governor for taking no action on some bills for over three years. This kind of indefinite delay is not allowed under the Constitution.
The judgement made it clear that once a bill is passed by the state Assembly and sent to the Governor, he has to decide within a reasonable time. The following timelines were also laid down by the Court for Governors' actions under Article 200:
If the Governor chooses to withhold assent or reserve a bill for the President, action must be taken within one month.
If the Governor acts contrary to the advice of the state by withholding assent or reserving a bill, a final decision must be taken within a maximum of three months.
Seven of the ten bills reserved for the President were rejected without public reasons. The Court flagged this as problematic:
“Withholding of assent by the President under Article 201 was by way of a non-speaking order and thus does not comply with the first provision.”
Like the Governor, the President is also bound by constitutional principles of transparency, the Court noted. The court said that the President must decide on the bills reserved by Governors within three months.
The Court reaffirmed the long-standing precedent that the Governor is not an independent authority but must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.