The Supreme Court is examining Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi’s prolonged delay in granting assent to state bills, bringing Article 200 under scrutiny. State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu challenges the Governor’s authority to withhold assent indefinitely. The court has sought the Union government’s justification, as the case could reshape the Governor’s constitutional responsibilities and state governance.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court is examining Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi’s prolonged delay in granting assent to state bills, bringing Article 200 under scrutiny. State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu challenges the Governor’s authority to withhold assent indefinitely. The court has sought the Union government’s justification, as the case could reshape the Governor’s constitutional responsibilities and state governance.
ISSUES IN THE CASE
1.Can Bills submitted to the Governor under Article 200 be kept pending indefinitely without any response?
2.Under Article 200, is the Governor required to resend a Bill to the Legislative Assembly with specific reasoning, or can they simply state that they are withholding assent?
3. When can the Governor refer a re-passed Bill, which was previously withheld, to the President for assent?
4.Has there been a delay in the exercise of constitutional functions by the Governor in Tamil Nadu?
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
On October 31, 2023, the Tamil Nadu government approached the Supreme Court, challenging Governor R.N. Ravi’s decision to keep several Bills and proposals pending without giving any response. The state government raised concerns that the Governor had delayed important decisions, leading to a constitutional issue.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Rejects Plea to Remove Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi
The Tamil Nadu government categorized the pending matters into four main types:
1.The first category included 12 Bills that were passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly between 2020 and 2023.
According to Article 200 of the Constitution, once a Bill is passed by the Legislative Assembly, it must be sent to the Governor. The Governor has three options: give assent to the Bill, withhold assent, or reserve the Bill for the President’s consideration.
Article 200 also states that the Governor should return the Bill “as soon as possible” along with suggestions for changes. If the Bill is passed again by the Assembly and sent back to the Governor, he must give his approval and cannot withhold it.
The Tamil Nadu government said these 12 Bills aimed to change laws related to state universities. Eight of these Bills sought to give the state government the power to appoint Vice Chancellors instead of the Governor.
One Bill proposed including a government representative in the panel that selects the Vice Chancellor. Two Bills suggested that the power of inspection and inquiry should be given to the government instead of the university Chancellor.
Three Bills proposed adding the Finance Secretary to the Syndicate of all universities, except three government universities.
One Bill aimed to set up a government-run Ayurveda university. Another Bill sought to give the state government complete control over appointing Vice Chancellors in all universities except the University of Madras.
2.The second category of pending cases involved files submitted between April 10, 2022, and May 15, 2023. These files sought permission to prosecute government officials for corruption and crimes under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3. The third category included 54 files related to the early release of prisoners. These files were submitted between August 24, 2023, and June 28, 2023, but remained pending with the Governor.
4.The fourth category involved proposals for appointing members to the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. Article 316 of the Constitution states that the Governor must appoint the Chairman and other members of the State Public Service Commission. However, the Tamil Nadu government alleged that the Governor had not acted on these proposals.
On November 10, 2023, the Supreme Court took serious note of the delay. The Bench stated that the pending Bills and proposals were “a matter of serious concern.” It issued a notice to the Union of India through the Home Ministry and asked the Attorney General or Solicitor General to assist the Court.
The case was scheduled for November 20. However, due to the Tamil Nadu government’s failure to pay the process fees, notice was not officially sent to the Union. By November 17, no documents had been filed in the case.
When the case was heard on November 20, the Court was informed that the Governor had “withheld assent” to 10 Bills. Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud observed that
“the Governor had taken action only after the Court’s order on November 10, despite the Bills being pending since January 2020. After the Governor withheld assent, the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly re-adopted the Bills.”
While moving the resolution to reconsider the Bills, Chief Minister M.K. Stalin emphasized that under Article 200, the Governor “shall not withhold assent” once a Bill is passed again by the Assembly.
The Attorney General argued that these Bills needed “reconsideration” because they involved the Governor’s power to appoint Vice Chancellors. However, when the Court pointed out that some Bills had been pending since January 2020, the Attorney General responded that R.N. Ravi had only been appointed as Governor in 2021. To this, the Court replied that the issue was not about any particular Governor but about whether there had been a general delay in fulfilling constitutional duties.
Chief Justice Chandrachud then raised an important question:
whether the Governor was required under Article 200 to return a Bill to the Assembly with reasons or whether he could simply say he was withholding assent.
The petitioners argued that such a practice would create a “pocket veto,” allowing the Governor to delay governance indefinitely. They stated that if the Governor was permitted to withhold Bills without explanation, “governance will be paralysed.”
The Chief Justice also asked whether the Governor could send a Bill to the President for assent after it had been passed again by the Assembly. The petitioners argued that the Governor did not have such power.
The Supreme Court further recorded that out of the 181 Bills submitted to Governor R.N. Ravi, 152 had received his assent. Five Bills were withdrawn by the state government, nine were sent to the President for approval, and nine others had their assent withheld. Five Bills that were submitted in October 2023 were still under the Governor’s consideration.
CURRENT STATUS
On February 6, 2025, a Supreme Court bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan framed key questions in the ongoing dispute between the Tamil Nadu government and Governor R.N. Ravi over his withholding of assent to bills passed by the legislative assembly.
The case, currently being argued by senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi on behalf of the Tamil Nadu government, highlights the Governor’s prolonged delay in approving legislation. The bench questioned the rationale behind the delay, with Justice Pardiwala specifically asking,
“What is it that is so objectionable in the bills that the Governor took three years to identify?”
The court noted that the Governor had referred two bills to the President after the assembly re-enacted them, raising concerns over the scope of the Governor’s discretion under Article 200 of the Constitution. Attorney General R. Venkataramani informed the court that the Governor had merely announced withholding assent without returning the bills for reconsideration, prompting Justice Pardiwala to emphasize that such action would undermine Article 200, stating,
“He states, ‘I withhold assent, but I won’t ask you to reconsider the bill.’ It makes no sense to continue withholding assent without returning the bills to the legislature, as this frustrates the intent of Article 200.”
The bench framed the following key issues for determination:
1.Suppose the Governor withholds assent to a Bill and sends it back to the State Legislature. If the Legislature re-enacts the Bill, can the Governor then send the Bill to the President for reconsideration, despite not having done so when the Bill was first presented to him?
2.Is the Governor’s discretion in reserving a Bill for the President’s consideration applicable to any Bill, or is it restricted to specific categories, particularly where the subject matter exceeds the competence of the State Legislature or is repugnant to a Central law?
3.What factors influenced the Governor’s decision to reserve the Bill for the President’s consideration?
4.What is the concept of a pocket veto?
5.What is the effect of the expression “shall declare” in the substantive part of Article 200? Can a specific time frame be read into Article 200 within which the Governor is expected to make a declaration?
6.How should Article 200 be interpreted in the following situations:
When the Bill is presented for assent, and the Governor, upon consideration, returns the Bill with a message requesting reconsideration of certain aspects, in terms of the first proviso to Article 200? \
When the Bill is presented, and upon consideration, the Governor withholds assent. If the Legislature subsequently re-enacts and presents the Bill again, is the Governor bound to give assent in both instances?
7.When the President directs the Governor to return a Bill, and the Bill is subsequently passed and presented again to the President, what course of action should the President adopt?
8. Is the Governor required to mandatorily assent to the Bill when it is placed before him for reconsideration, or does Article 201 prescribe a constitutional framework, and if so, how should any silence in this regard be interpreted?
Justice Pardiwala remarked,
“It appears he has adopted his own procedure,”
and stressed that the Governor cannot simply reject a bill on grounds of repugnancy without justification. The bench directed the Attorney General to present factual reasons, original files, and contemporaneous records from the Governor’s office to explain the decision.
Notably, Justice Pardiwala pointed out that the Governor’s decision to withhold assent came just three days after the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Punjab Governor’s case, where it was held that Governors cannot indefinitely delay bills. He further observed,
“The judgment was issued just three days before his decision to withhold.”
The Tamil Nadu government also alleged malice-in-law and malice-in-fact on the part of the Governor, particularly as the bills sought to remove the Governor as Chancellor of State Universities.
While the Attorney General argued that this was a matter of national significance, the bench clarified that its focus would remain on the Governor’s authority under Article 200.
Justice Pardiwala demanded, “You need to explain what was so egregious in the bills to warrant this action.”
When the AG suggested that a mere declaration of repugnancy was sufficient, Justice Pardiwala countered, “You must demonstrate the repugnancy. Can bills be withheld purely on the basis of repugnancy?” The court further questioned why only two bills were sent to the President when the Governor had the option to refer all.
Asserting that the case centers on the interpretation of Article 200, Justice Pardiwala asked, “How long can such bills be delayed?” The bench also examined whether the Governor is constitutionally obligated to grant assent once a bill is re-passed by the legislature.
The hearing, which involves petitions filed by the Tamil Nadu government against the Governor’s refusal to assent to state bills, will continue with further arguments from the Attorney General.
Case name: The State of Tamil Nadu v Governor of Tamil Nadu
Case Number: WP (Civil) No. 1239/2023
READ MORE REPORTS ON SUPREME COURT
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE
