In a major win for the DMK government in Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court ruled that Governor R N Ravi’s decision to withhold assent to 10 bills – despite their re-passage by the state assembly – was “illegal, erroneous in law and liable to be set aside”.
By setting clear timelines and specifying exceptions, the judgment is expected to significantly shape the relationship between state governments and governors across India. It may also influence similar legal battles in states like West Bengal, Kerala, and Telangana, which have approached the apex court with comparable concerns.
A day after the verdict, editorials in leading national dailies emphasised that the issue is neither new nor confined to Tamil Nadu. Many hailed the ruling for reinforcing checks on gubernatorial authority at a time when tensions between Raj Bhavans and elected governments, particularly in opposition-ruled states, are increasingly frequent.
The Indian Express underlined that this is “not the first time the Court has cautioned governors against overreach”. “In 2023, in State of Punjab vs Principal Secretary to Punjab Governor, the Court had held that governors are bound to act in a timely manner on bills passed by the elected legislature and that withholding assent without justifiable cause undermines the will of the people.”
“With states like Kerala and Telangana also having gone to court alleging obstructionist tactics and undue delays by their respective governors, the verdict in the Tamil Nadu case is bound to have a wider impact. This recalibration of the governor’s role is essential for preserving the integrity of democratic institutions and ensuring that the will of the people prevails.”
The Times of India pointed out that “what makes this judgment different from others on the subject is that SC has removed an ambiguity arising from the wording of Article 200 of the Constitution”. “Where the Article says governors must send bills for reconsideration ‘as soon as possible’, SC has said governors will have a maximum of three months to return a bill for the state govt’s reconsideration, or send it to the President. That’s a long-overdue blow for federalism.”
“Governors vs states is an old story, and recommending president’s rule used to be the top trick in a governor’s playbook. Now, sitting on bills, refusing to convene assembly sessions, and rejecting VC appointments are more common across opposition-run states,” it said.
An editorial in the Hindustan Times noted that the order was a “damning indictment” of the actions of the Raj Bhavan in Chennai and “leaves Mr Ravi with few honourable options other than to resign”.
However, it noted that the problem of Raj Bhavans overstepping their constitutional boundaries “goes back to the early years of independence — from the Jawaharlal Nehru Cabinet recommending the dismissal of the Kerala government in 1959 despite the latter enjoying a legislative majority to the Indira Gandhi administration dismissing several state governments using the office of the governor”. “Since 2014, a number of Raj Bhavans across the country have attempted to emerge as parallel power centres to the elected governments in states ruled by non-BJP parties. This cemented the perception that some constitutional appointees were infringing on the domain of the state government and appeared to be more interested in pushing the envelope and ratcheting up confrontation, than cooperating in governance.”
The New Indian Express noted that the court was “cross” as Ravi “flouted the principle laid down by a different bench in the Punjab governor case, which said those in gubernatorial positions do not have a veto on bills by squatting on them. Instead of falling in line, Ravi sent the Tamil Nadu legislations to the president.”
“By upholding the federal spirit of the Constitution and setting tight timelines, the ruling removes doubts about gubernatorial options on bills. While the verdict may not end future showdowns, expedited decision-making would serve democracy well.”
An editorial in The Tribune pointed out that the “overarching message is that the Governor must ideally be the state government’s friend, philosopher and guide; he or she should not let political considerations undermine his or her allegiance to the Constitution”.
It said the court’s strictures against Ravi should serve as a “warning to the Centre’s appointees across the country, particularly in states where the BJP is not in power”. “The Centre would also be well-advised to desist from giving governors carte blanche to impede the functioning of state governments. This can help in restoring much-needed balance in Union-state relations. The focus must be on encouraging harmonious CM-Governor ties so that the state’s all-round progress is not derailed by unsavoury rows.”
Small teams can do great things. All it takes is a subscription. Subscribe now and power Newslaundry’s work.
Newslaundry is a reader-supported, ad-free, independent news outlet based out of New Delhi. Support their journalism, here.
