Aastha Pareek
The Supreme Court of India on February 10, 2025 has reserved its Judgment on a petition filed by the Tamil Nadu government challenging the actions of Governor Dr. RN Ravi concerning several bills passed by the state assembly. The dispute arose after the Governor withheld assent to certain bills and later referred them to the President even after the state assembly had re-enacted them in the case of The State Of Tamil Nadu v. The Governor Of Tamil Nadu And Ane and The State Of Tamil Nadu v. The Vice Chancellor And Ors.
Between 2020 and 2023, the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly passed multiple bills, including those seeking to remove the Governor as Chancellor of state universities. These bills were sent to Governor Ravi for assent, but he neither approved nor returned them for reconsideration, leading to an extended delay. In November 2023, the Governor announced that he was withholding assent to ten of these bills. In response, the Tamil Nadu Assembly re-enacted and resubmitted the bills on November 18, 2023. However, instead of granting assent, the Governor referred some of these re-enacted bills to the President.
During the Supreme Court proceedings, a Bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan examined the constitutional provisions under Article 200, which outlines the Governor’s role in state legislation. Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the Tamil Nadu government, argued that once the Governor withholds assent and the Assembly re-enacts a bill, the Governor is constitutionally bound to grant assent and cannot refer the bill to the President. He emphasized that such an action would undermine the authority of the elected legislature and disrupt the democratic process.
Justice Pardiwala questioned the Governor’s prolonged inaction, asking, “What was the Governor doing for three years?” He also noted that merely withholding assent without returning the bill for reconsideration could defeat the purpose of Article 200. The Bench further stressed the necessity of providing reasons when returning a bill, arguing that failing to do so would be contrary to federal principles.
Attorney General R. Venkataramani, representing the Governor, defended the decision, asserting that the Governor’s actions were within constitutional bounds. He argued that the nature of the bills, particularly those seeking to remove the Governor as Chancellor of universities, had broader national implications, justifying their referral to the President.
The case raises significant constitutional questions regarding whether the Governor can indefinitely withhold assent without returning a bill to the Assembly for reconsideration, whether a re-enacted bill can still be referred to the President, and the extent of the Governor’s discretionary power under Article 200. The Supreme Court’s forthcoming Judgment is expected to clarify these issues and define the constitutional boundaries of the Governor’s powers concerning state legislation. This ruling will have far-reaching implications for the relationship between state governments and Governors across India, potentially shaping the legislative process and federal balance. The Court’s decision is expected to provide crucial guidance on how Governors should handle bills passed by state legislatures while ensuring adherence to constitutional principles and democratic norms.
Case Name:- The State Of Tamil Nadu v. The Governor Of Tamil Nadu And Ane and The State Of Tamil Nadu v. The Vice Chancellor And Ors.
Case Number:- W.P.(C) No. 1239/2023 and W.P.(C) No. 1271/2023
Bench:– Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan