According to sources, a review petition is expected to be filed in the Supreme Court next week to seek a reconsideration of the judgment.
![[BREAKING] Centre May Bring Ordinance Against Supreme Court Verdict in Tamil Nadu Governor Case | Review Petition Likely Next Week](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Governor-1.webp?resize=820%2C461&ssl=1)
NEW DELHI: The Central Government is considering bringing an ordinance to challenge a recent judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the RN Ravi vs Tamil Nadu Government case. This move could set off a serious face-off between the judiciary and the executive.
As per a report by CNN News18, “Top-level deliberations already done”, and the government is now actively working on a strategy to counter the apex court’s ruling.
The Supreme Court, in its recent verdict, gave a strict 3-month deadline to the President of India to decide on the bills passed by the state legislature. In an unexpected move, the court also approved bills that were earlier rejected by the President, by exercising its extraordinary constitutional powers.
The government reportedly believes that the President of India was not even given a chance to be heard before this judgment was passed. The concern is that such an important constitutional authority should not be left out of a legal discussion that directly affects their powers.
While speaking to the 6th batch of Rajya Sabha interns, Mr Dhankhar strongly opposed the idea of courts giving directions to the President.
He said:
“We cannot have a situation where courts direct the President.”
He also raised concerns over Article 142 of the Constitution, which grants the Supreme Court special powers to deliver complete justice in any case. According to him, this Article is now being used excessively:
“Article 142 of the Constitution… has become a nuclear missile against democratic forces, available to the judiciary 24×7.”
April 8 Judgement On Governor Case
This major judgment came from a bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan on April 8, in response to a plea by the Tamil Nadu government. The DMK-led Tamil Nadu government had complained about long delays in getting assent for several bills passed by the state assembly.
These bills were sent to Governor R N Ravi, who had then reserved them for the President’s consideration, instead of giving his assent or returning them.
The Supreme Court gave a big relief to the Tamil Nadu government by clearing ten bills that had been stuck. The court also clearly said that Governors must act on bills passed by the state assembly within a reasonable time and cannot delay them unnecessarily.
In the detailed judgment written by Justice Pardiwala, which runs into 415 pages, the court discussed the powers of the Governor under Article 200 and of the President under Article 201 of the Indian Constitution.
Article 200 explains what a Governor can do when a bill is passed by a state assembly – either give assent, withhold assent, or send it to the President. Article 201 explains what happens when the Governor reserves a bill for the President’s consideration.
The court said that the actions of both the Governor and the President related to state bills can be reviewed by the courts under certain situations.
“Where the Governor reserves a bill for the consideration of the President and the President in turn withholds assent thereto then, it shall be open to the State Government to assail such an action before this Court,”
-the court said.
The Supreme Court stressed that these important constitutional powers given to the Governor and President must be used properly and not in an unfair or irresponsible way.
“Where the Governor reserves a bill for the consideration of the President in his own discretion and contrary to the aid and advice tendered to him by the State Council of Ministers, it shall be open to the State Government to assail such an action before the appropriate High Court or this Court,”
-the judgment further said.
The court explained under what conditions a state can challenge such reservations in courts.
“Where the reservation of a bill by the Governor for the consideration of the President is on the grounds of peril to democracy or democratic principles or on other exceptional grounds as mentioned in M.P. Special Police (supra) and Nabam Rebia (supra) then the Governor would be expected to make a specific and clear reference to the President properly indicating the reasons for entertaining such a belief by pinpointing the specific provisions in this regard and the consequent effect that may ensue if such a bill were to be allowed to become a law,”
-the bench said.
The court also said that while sending the bill to the President, the Governor must give a proper explanation and reasoning.
“It shall be open to the state Government to challenge such a reservation on the ground of failure on part of the Governor to furnish the necessary reasons as discussed aforesaid or that the reasons indicated are wholly irrelevant, mala-fide, arbitrary, unnecessary or motivated by extraneous considerations. This being a question completely capable of being determined by the constitutional courts, would be fully justiciable,”
-the judgement said.
The court strongly said that keeping a bill pending or reserving it just because the Governor personally disagrees or due to political reasons is not allowed.
“Reserving a bill on grounds such as ‘personal dissatisfaction of the Governor, political expediency or any other extraneous or irrelevant considerations’ is strictly impermissible by the Constitution and would be liable to be set-aside forthwith on that ground alone,”
-Justice Pardiwala said.
The court also clarified that even if the Governor sends a bill to the President to get special immunity or approval, and then the President withholds assent, the matter can still be checked by the court if it looks like the power was used unfairly.
“Where a State bill has been reserved by the governor for the consideration of the President on the ground that assent of the President is required for the purpose of making the bill enforceable or securing some immunity therefor, then in such cases the withholding of assent by the President would be justiciable to the limited extent of exercise of such power in an arbitrary or mala fide manner. Owing to the political nature of the assent of the President in these categories of bills, the courts would impose a self-restraint,”
-it said.
Further, if the bill looks completely unconstitutional and the President withholds assent for that reason, then the courts can freely look into that matter as a legal question.
“In such cases, it would be prudent for the President to obtain the advisory opinion of this court by way of a reference under Article 143 and act in accordance with the same to dispel any apprehensions of bias, arbitrariness or mala fides,”
-it said.
The Top Court on April 8 gave a strong message about the growing problem of Governors misusing their powers in some Indian states.
The Court clearly said that Governors must not use their position to stop or delay the work of elected State Governments just for political reasons.
Doing so, the Court said, is against the will of the people who have chosen their leaders through elections.
The Court looked into how the Governor handled – or failed to handle – a bill passed by the Tamil Nadu State Legislature.
The judges clearly stated that the Governor should work with respect towards the traditions of India’s democracy. He should understand that the State Government is chosen by the people, and the Legislature represents their voice.
At the end of the verdict, the Supreme Court shared a powerful quote from Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, who was the chief architect of our Constitution. The Court said this message is still very important today, maybe even more than it was back in 1949.
“However good a constitution may be, it is sure to turn out bad because those who are called to work it happen to be a bad lot. However bad a constitution may be, it may turn out to be good if those who are called to work it happen to be a good lot.”
Court gives clear timelines for Governor’s actions
Although Article 200 does not have an exact time limit, the Court said that the Governor cannot keep delaying and should act in a reasonable time. So, the Court decided to set clear timeframes for different actions:
“The use of the expression ‘as soon as possible’ in the first proviso makes it clear that the Constitution infuses a sense of urgency upon the Governor and expects him to act with expediency if he decides to declare the withholding of assent,”
–it clarified.
Here are the timelines fixed by the Court:
- If the Governor agrees to withhold assent or reserve the bill for the President, with the help of the State Cabinet’s advice, he must do this within 1 month.
- If the Governor withholds assent against the State Cabinet’s advice, he must return the bill with a message within 3 months.
- If the Governor reserves a bill for the President against the Cabinet’s advice, he must do it within 3 months.
- If the bill is passed again after reconsideration, the Governor must give assent within 1 month.
If the Governor does not follow these timelines, the courts can review and take legal action.
Governor’s decisions can be reviewed by courts
Finally, the Court said that judicial review is a key part of our Constitution, and even the Governor’s actions under Article 200 can be reviewed by courts.
“So withholding of assent or reservation of bills for the consideration of the President in exercise of his discretion, being subject to the limits defined by the Constitution, would be justiciable on judicially determinable grounds,”
-the Court added.
This means that if the Governor misuses his power or delays action, courts can check and stop it.
Key Highlights from Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling in Tamil Nadu Governor Case
The Supreme Court laid down several critical legal principles that will have a long-lasting impact on Centre-State relations and the role of Governors in India:
- The Governor’s action of reserving 10 bills for the President’s consideration, even after they were passed again by the Tamil Nadu Assembly, has been declared illegal.
- The Court ruled that any actions taken by the President based on those 10 reserved bills are legally invalid or non est—meaning they hold no legal existence.
- By invoking its special authority under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court directed that all 10 bills will be treated as law from the date they were re-submitted to the Governor for assent.
- It clearly stated that once a bill is passed again after reconsideration by the State Assembly, the Governor must give assent unless the bill is substantially different.
- If the Governor wishes to withhold assent and send the bill to the President, this must be done within one month and with the advice of the Council of Ministers.
- If the Governor withholds assent without acting on ministerial advice, then the bill must be returned within three months.
- If a bill is sent again after being reconsidered by the Assembly, the Governor is mandatorily required to give assent within one month.
- Except for specific cases under the second proviso to Article 200 and matters like Articles 31, 32, etc., the Governor is constitutionally bound to act based on the advice of the Council of Ministers.
- Most importantly, the Court affirmed that the Governor’s conduct under Article 200 is not above judicial scrutiny. His inaction or arbitrary decisions can be challenged and reviewed by the courts.
This judgment strongly reinforces that Governors cannot act independently or delay bills without reason, protecting democratic values and legislative efficiency across Indian States.
According to sources, a review petition is expected to be filed in the Supreme Court next week to seek a reconsideration of the judgment.
