NEW DELHI: In a landmark judgment on April 8, 2025, the Supreme Court deemed Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi’s refusal to assent to 10 state bills as illegal and unconstitutional.
The verdict, delivered by Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan, came in response to a writ petition filed by the Tamil Nadu government challenging the Governor’s prolonged inaction on important bills.
The case...
The case stemmed from a prolonged standoff between the DMK-led Tamil Nadu government and Governor RN Ravi. Between November 2020 and April 2023, the state legislature passed 13 bills, of which 10 were either withheld or sent back to the Assembly by the Governor without any communication. When the legislature re-approved the bills without any material changes, Governor Ravi still did not assent to the bills; reserving them for the President’s consideration, which the court found unconstitutional.
The Constitution says...
Under Article 200 of the Constitution, when a bill is passed by state legislature, the Governor has four options:
Assent to the bill
Withhold assent
Return the bill (not a money bill) for reconsideration
Reserve the bill for the President’s consideration
However, the Article does not prescribe a timeline, allowing room for ambiguity. The Supreme Court clarified that this cannot be interpreted to allow indefinite delays or misuse of discretionary powers.
What the top court ruled?
The Supreme Court held that the Governor’s actions were not only deliberately obstructive but also violated constitutional procedure. The court said the Governor lacked ‘bonafide’ (good faith) in his actions and failed to respect the Constitution and the authority of court.
It is not up to the Governor to reserve a bill for the President after the Assembly has passed the legislature for a second time without any changes. The Constitution, in the phrase “shall not withhold assent,” mandates that the Governor must assent to such bills, the SC held, asserting that the conduct of Governor Ravi went against the very principles of parliamentary democracy.
Timelines for Governors
The Supreme Court laid down time-bound guidelines for Governors under Article 200:
Assent or reservation (on advice of Council of Ministers): Within 1 month
Withholding assent (against Council’s advice): Must return with message within 3 months
Reservation (against advice): Must within 3 months
Post-reconsideration assent: Must be given within 1 month
Why the order doesn’t amount to judicial overreach?
The Supreme Court affirmed that its direction stipulating a timeline for Governors was not a transgression on part of judiciary, but a necessary interpretation to uphold the spirit of the Constitution and prevent misuse of discretionary powers.
“The prescription of a time limit within which the ordinary exercise of power by the Governor under Article 200 must take place, is not the same thing as amending the Constitution.”
The court emphasised that these timelines do not alter Article 200 or its framework but rather ensure it is not rendered ineffective by indefinite delays.
The reasons cited by SC?
The court cited three crucial reasons to justify its decision:
No Distortion of Constitutional Procedure
The time limit does not alter the procedural aspects laid out in Article 200. Instead, they provide structure and accountability to ensure the process happens in a reasonable, timely manner. Far from disrupting the constitutional design, this interpretation supports effective implementation.
Reinforcing Constitutional Urgency
The direction to act within specific timeframes aligns with the urgency associated with the legislative processes. By putting a check on delays, the court has ensured that the Governor’s role remains functional and relevant, rather than becoming an obstacle to governance.
Avoiding Automatic Consequences
Importantly, the Court did not introduce a mechanism of deemed assent—where the Governor’s inaction would automatically result in approval. The judgment leaves room for genuine delays to be justified, ensuring that the timeline isn’t a ‘hanging sword’ over the Governor. Instead, if delays occur, the courts can step in and assess whether those were reasonable.
The President’s role
The court also addressed the President’s role under Article 201, which governs the assent of bills reserved by Governors. The SC ruled that even the President cannot delay decisions indefinitely and that such inaction is open to judicial scrutiny. Moreover, invoking Article 143, the Court stated if a bill is reserved on grounds of unconstitutionality, the President “ought to” seek the Supreme Court’s opinion—though not mandatory, such a reference holds high persuasive value.
Reiterating Governor’s role
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the Governor is not meant to act as a political agent but as a constitutional figurehead: “He must be the harbinger of consensus and resolution… a catalyst and not an inhibitor.”