Tamil Nadu has moved the Supreme Court challenging the President’s decision to withhold assent to its 2021 anti-NEET Bill. The State says the refusal is unconstitutional and creates a federal deadlock.
Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin has condemned President Droupadi Murmu’s request to the Supreme Court regarding timelines for Governor assent on State Bills. He argues it undermines constitutional authority and calls it a tactic to weaken opposition-led governments. The Supreme Court previously ruled against delays by the Tamil Nadu Governor, emphasizing judicial authority.
President Droupadi Murmu has sought the Supreme Court’s opinion on whether judicial review can apply to the President’s and Governors’ actions regarding state assembly Bills, as constitutional timelines are not specified. This inquiry raises significant issues regarding separation of powers and judicial oversight in the democratic process.
The Supreme Court of India ruled that the President must decide on bills proposed by the Governor within three months, addressing delays faced by the Tamil Nadu government. The ruling emphasized that both the President and Governor cannot delay decisions indefinitely and clarified conditions under which their actions can be challenged in court.
On April 8, 2025, the Supreme Court of India clarified the roles of the President and Governor regarding State Bills, emphasizing judicial review of presidential actions under Article 201. The Court stated the President must decide on bills within three months and cannot use a pocket veto, demanding clear reasons for withholding assent.
NEW DELHI: On Friday (8th Feb): The Supreme Court of India has raised concerns over a “deadlock” caused by Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi not taking a decision on bills passed by the legislative assembly. The court questioned how the state government could function if the Governor neither approved nor communicated his reasons for withholding assent.