The Chief Minister was clearly referring to the ongoing struggles between Governors — mostly appointed by the BJP-led central government — and the non-BJP state governments, such as Kerala and Punjab.
NEW DELHI: Today, 8th April: The Supreme Court has ruled that Governor R.N Ravi‘s delay and refusal to give assent to 10 bills passed by the state legislature — including two passed during the AIADMK regime — was “illegal” and “arbitrary“.
This judgment has been called a “historic verdict” by Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin.
In a short but impactful speech at the Tamil Nadu Assembly, Chief Minister MK Stalin shared the happy news with fellow legislators and the people of Tamil Nadu.
He said:
“The Supreme Court has granted assent to all bills we passed and (to which) the Governor had refused assent.”
He added that this verdict is not just a win for his government or party but for all state governments across India:
“This is a big victory not just for Tamil Nadu but all Indian states…”
The Chief Minister was clearly referring to the ongoing struggles between Governors — mostly appointed by the BJP-led central government — and the non-BJP state governments, such as Kerala and Punjab.
The Supreme Court bench, consisting of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan, said the Governor had failed to act in “good faith” and ordered that all pending bills should be considered as cleared from the date they were re-presented to the Governor.
The Supreme Court took an unprecedented step by saying that the 10 bills will be considered as passed from the date they were re-submitted to the Governor after the State Assembly reconsidered them.
The Court made it clear:
“Action of Governor to reserve the 10 bills for President is illegal and arbitrary and thus the action is set aside. All actions taken by Governor thereto for the 10 bills is set aside. The 10 bills shall be deemed to be clear from the date it was re-presented to the Governor.”
The Court emphasized that when a bill is re-sent to the Governor after reconsideration by the State Assembly, he is bound by the Constitution to give assent, unless the bill is significantly different from the original.
The Court also spoke about the Governor’s inaction and delays, saying that even though Article 200 of the Constitution doesn’t mention a specific deadline for the Governor to act, it doesn’t mean he can delay bills indefinitely.
The judges said:
“There is no expressly specified time limit for the discharge of the functions by the Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution. Despite there being no prescribed time limits, Article 200 cannot be read in a manner which allows the Governor to not take action upon this, which are presented to him for assent and thereby delay, and essentially roadblock law making machinery in the State…Whenever a bill is presented to the Governor, he is under a constitutional obligation to adopt one of the three courses of action available.”
The bench laid down specific timelines within which the Governor must make a decision on bills passed by the State Assembly. These are:
- If the Governor wants to withhold assent and reserve the bill for the President (with advice from the State Cabinet): He must do so within 1 month.
- If the Governor wants to withhold assent without the Council of Ministers’ advice: He must return the bill within 3 months.
- If the bill is presented again after being reconsidered by the Assembly: The Governor must give assent within 1 month.
The Court warned that if these timelines are not followed, the Governor’s inaction can be challenged in court.
This judgment came after the Tamil Nadu government filed a petition in the Supreme Court, accusing the Governor of deliberately stalling the legislative process by not giving assent to several bills passed by the State Assembly.
The State told the Court that the Governor was “holding the entire State to ransom” by indefinitely delaying action on the bills. It requested the Court to intervene and ensure that bills are decided in a time-bound manner.
- Tamil Nadu Government was represented by Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Mukul Rohatgi, Rakesh Dwivedi, and P Wilson.
- Attorney General for India, R Venkataramani, appeared for Governor RN Ravi.
The DMK government has, for a long time, accused Governor RN Ravi of blocking development work and deliberately delaying bills sent by the elected state government for his approval. The party has claimed that such actions by the Governor are against democratic principles and amount to “undermining the will of the people”.
Following the court’s verdict, the ruling DMK party demanded that Governor RN Ravi step down, saying he should do so out of “respect (for the) office of the Governor”.
The relationship between the Tamil Nadu government and Governor Ravi has often been hostile. The DMK and its leaders have repeatedly accused the Governor of acting as a political tool of the central government.
This is not the first time the Supreme Court has stepped in regarding this issue. Back in November 2023 and again in January 2024, the top court expressed its frustration with the Governor’s inaction. The court directly questioned Mr Ravi’s delay and asked:
“These bills have been pending since 2020… What was he (Mr Ravi) doing for three years?”
The court had also warned both the Governor and the state government to sort out their differences, or it would be “forced to act.”
This Supreme Court decision comes at a crucial time as Tamil Nadu gears up for the upcoming Assembly elections. The DMK, Congress, AIADMK, and BJP are all preparing their campaigns, and this verdict is expected to boost the DMK’s image as a defender of state rights and constitutional values.
The verdict also comes when tensions between the Tamil Nadu government and the Centre are rising due to major disagreements over:
- Delimitation (redrawing of electoral boundaries),
- The alleged “Hindi imposition”, and
- The rejection of the bill to exempt Tamil Nadu students from the NEET (National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test) for medical courses.
