In a major development, the Supreme Court of India has come down heavily on Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi, stating that his decision to reserve 10 bills passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly for the President's consideration was both “illegal and unconstitutional.” The apex court observed that such actions undermine the legislative authority of elected governments and disrupt the federal balance envisioned in the Constitution.
The remarks were made during a hearing on a petition filed by the Tamil Nadu government, which had challenged the governor’s inaction and delay in giving assent to bills that had been duly passed by the state assembly. The state alleged that the governor was stalling governance by failing to act within a reasonable timeframe.
The Supreme Court bench, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, stated that the role of the governor is primarily ceremonial in nature when it comes to the state legislature and that the governor cannot "sit on bills indefinitely" or act as a parallel authority. The bench further clarified that Article 200 of the Constitution does not allow governors to delay or deny assent to bills without solid constitutional reasoning.
Criticizing Governor Ravi’s actions, the court emphasized that constitutional offices must function within their defined limits and should not obstruct democratic processes. The court also reminded that the spirit of cooperative federalism must guide interactions between state governments and governors.
The central issue revolves around bills related to education, governance, and administrative reforms that had been passed by the Tamil Nadu Assembly but were either delayed or reserved by the governor without clear explanation.
The Supreme Court’s sharp observations come amid growing tensions between various state governments and governors appointed by the Centre. The judgment is likely to have wider implications, reinforcing that governors must act in aid and advice of the council of ministers, in accordance with constitutional provisions.
This case reaffirms the principle that democratic mandates should not be overridden by unelected constitutional authorities.
