In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of India delivered a stinging rebuke to Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi, declaring his withholding of bills passed by the state Assembly as "illegal" and laying down a firm constitutional timeline for how Governors must act on legislation.
Key Highlights of the Supreme Court Ruling:
-
The Court ruled that the Governor cannot sit indefinitely on bills and that such prolonged inaction is a "constitutional breach".
-
The **Governor must act within three months—either by granting assent, returning the bill, or referring it to the President.
-
The concept of a "pocket veto" or indefinite withholding of assent does not exist in the Indian Constitution, the bench emphasized.
-
The Court referred to Article 200, which outlines the Governor’s options and obligations regarding state legislation, stating unequivocally:
“There is no scope of inaction. The Governor is under a constitutional obligation to act.”
-
The judgment called the Governor’s inaction "non-bonafide" and not aligned with the democratic spirit of governance.
The Context:
Tamil Nadu’s DMK government, led by Chief Minister MK Stalin, had filed a petition in the Supreme Court accusing Governor RN Ravi of deliberately stalling or withholding several important bills passed by the state legislature. These included bills related to appointment processes in universities, state-run administrative reforms, and other key legislative matters.
Court’s Observations:
-
The Governor’s discretion is limited under Article 200 and cannot be exercised to create a parallel center of power within a state.
-
Once a bill is returned and re-passed by the Assembly, the Governor is constitutionally bound to assent unless the bill has undergone significant changes.
-
The President's assent, though non-justiciable, does not shield the Governor’s earlier conduct from judicial review.
-
The Court also invoked the Governor’s oath of office, highlighting that their duty is to uphold the Constitution and serve the people’s welfare, not obstruct democratic will.
Political Reactions:
-
Chief Minister MK Stalin hailed the ruling as a historic victory for Tamil Nadu and a reaffirmation of federalism and constitutional accountability.
-
Stalin said the judgment safeguards the rights of elected state legislatures and strengthens the autonomy of the states in the federal framework.
Broader Implications:
This verdict sets a powerful precedent for all Indian states facing friction with Governors appointed by the Centre. It:
-
Reinforces the primacy of elected legislatures in lawmaking.
-
Places a clear judicial check on gubernatorial overreach.
-
Restores faith in the judicial system as a guardian of constitutional balance, especially in an era of increasing Centre-State tensions.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s intervention aims to “calm the constitutional waters stirred by a high functionary,” and sends a message: Governors are not beyond scrutiny, and democracy must not be held hostage to partisan or procedural obstruction.
