The Supreme Court stated that those in high offices must uphold constitutional values, addressing the conduct of Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi. Though the verdict was delivered on April 8, 2025, it was made public only recently.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court released, late on Friday, April 11, 2025, its highly anticipated judgment regarding Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi’s prolonged delay in granting consent and subsequent referral of ten re-passed Bills to President Droupadi Murmu for her consideration on November 28, 2023.
The Court deemed this delay “erroneous in law and non-est.”
The Court also invalidated the consequential actions taken by President Murmu concerning these Bills as non-est.
The bench, consisting of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, highlighted that the Governor’s prolonged inaction and his eventual declaration of withholding assent, along with the minimal regard shown to Supreme Court judgments regarding the adherence to the advice of the State’s Council of Ministers, indicated “other extraneous considerations” influencing his duties.
The Court stated,
“We are left with no other option but to exercise our inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution for the purpose of declaring these 10 Bills as deemed to have been assented on the date when they were presented to the Governor after being reconsidered by the State legislature i.e., on November 18, 2023.”
While the judgment was pronounced in open court on April 8, it was not published until now. The Supreme Court clarified that a Governor’s reservation of a Bill to the President based on personal dissatisfaction, political expediency, or any “extraneous or irrelevant considerations” is strictly prohibited by the Constitution. Such a reference would be immediately subject to dismissal by constitutional courts.
Also Read: Supreme Court Rejects Plea to Remove Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi
The Court specified that a Governor should reserve a Bill for consideration by the President only on grounds that indicate a clear threat to democratic principles, supported by specific reasons.
The judgment explained,
“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 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,”
Justice Pardiwala noted that the Governor must express his subjective satisfaction regarding why potential consequences cannot be addressed by constitutional courts.
State governments have the right to challenge such reservations if the Governor fails to provide necessary reasons, arguing that the reasons given were irrelevant, arbitrary, or motivated by extraneous considerations.
Such matters are “fully justiciable” by constitutional courts.
The State can approach the competent court for a writ of mandamus if a Governor delays a Bill beyond three months. The State can seek a swift resolution through the courts if the Governor cannot adequately justify his delay.
Justice Pardiwala stated,
“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 the Supreme Court,”
The apex court reminded constitutional authorities that they must adhere to the values of the Constitution, which have been shaped by years of struggle and sacrifice by the nation’s forebears.
Justice Pardiwala wrote,
“When called upon to take decisions, such authorities must not give in to ephemeral political considerations but rather be guided by the spirit that underlies the Constitution,”
He cautioned that attempts to circumvent the constitutional mandate threaten the very ideals revered by the people on which the nation was built.
“We take this opportunity to quote Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s concluding speech in the Constituent Assembly, which is as relevant today as it was 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.’”
Case Title: The State of Tamil Nadu v. The Governor of Tamil Nadu & Anr. (2025 INSC 481)
Read Attachment