The Supreme Court criticized Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi for showing scant respect to the judiciary and delaying assent to ten bills. It noted that his actions violated principles established in the 2023 Punjab Governor’s case.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court strongly criticized Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi for his handling of bills passed by the State legislature.
A Bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan noted that the Governor had kept ten bills pending for an excessively long time, which violated principles established in the Court’s ruling from the Punjab Governor’s case in November 2023.
The Bench suggested that the Governor may have been influenced by irrelevant factors in his decision-making. Consequently, they decided to use their powers under Article 142 to declare that the ten bills should be considered as having been passed.
The judgment stated,
“Having regard to the unduly long period of time for which these Bills were kept pending by the Governor before the ultimate declaration of withholding of assent and in view of the scant respect shown by the Governor to the decision of this Court in State of Punjab and other extraneous considerations that appear to be writ large in the discharge of his functions, 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 ten 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 18.11.2023,”
The Supreme Court further stated,
“In view of the scant respect shown by the Governor to the decision of this Court in State of Punjab and other extraneous considerations that appear to be writ large in the discharge of his functions, we are left with no other option.”
The conflict emerged when the Governor withheld assent for ten bills passed by the State legislature between November 2020 and April 2023. He did not send any message to the legislature for reconsideration of these bills, as required by the first proviso to Article 200 of the Constitution.
The Governor eventually returned the ten bills to the legislature, which then repassed them without any significant changes and forwarded them to the Governor for assent, in accordance with Article 200.
Exercising his discretion and without consulting the Council of Ministers, the Governor referred the repassed bills to the President for consideration.
Also Read: Supreme Court Rejects Plea to Remove Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi
The Supreme Court ruled that the Governor cannot reserve a bill for the President’s consideration once it has been presented to him a second time, following its earlier return and subsequent passage by the legislature.
The Court ruled,
“As a general rule, it is not open for the Governor to reserve a bill for the consideration of the President once it is presented to him in the second round, after having been returned to the House previously as per the first proviso. The use of the expression ‘shall not withhold assent therefrom’ appearing in the first proviso places a clear embargo on the Governor and is a clear enunciation of the requirement that the Governor must assent to a bill which is presented to him after complying with the procedure laid down in the first proviso,”
The only exception to this general rule is if the bill presented in the second round is materially different from the original version. Thus, the Court found the Governor’s reservation of the ten bills for the President’s consideration in the second round to be illegal and erroneous.
The Court stated,
“As a result, any subsequent action taken upon the said bills by the President also does not survive and is thus set aside,”
Importantly, the Court ordered that, given the lengthy period during which the bills were pending with the Governor and his failure to act in good faith by reserving them for presidential consideration, the bills are deemed to have been assented to by the Governor on the date they were presented to him after being reconsidered by the legislature.
This extraordinary directive was issued by the Court through its inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, which allows it to provide directions for complete justice in relevant cases.
The Supreme Court remarked,
“Governor must act with due deference to the settled conventions of parliamentary democracy; respecting the will of the people being expressed through the legislature.”
The Court made it clear that it is not seeking to undermine the office of the Governor. Instead, it emphasized that the Governor should serve as a promoter of consensus and resolution.
The judgment stated,
“All we say is that the Governor must act with due deference to the settled conventions of parliamentary democracy; respecting the will of the people being expressed through the legislature as well as the elected government responsible to the people. He must perform his role of a friend, philosopher and guide with dispassion, guided not by considerations of political expediency but by the sanctity of the constitutional oath he undertakes. In times of conflict, he must be the harbinger of consensus and resolution, lubricating the functioning of the State machinery by his sagacity, wisdom and not run it into a standstill. He must be the catalyst and not an inhibitor,”
Case Title: The State of Tamil Nadu v. The Governor of Tamil Nadu & Anr. (2025 INSC 481)
Read Attachment
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
