In a scathing verdict that has sent ripples across India’s constitutional and political landscape, the Supreme Court of India on April 8, 2025, ruled that the Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi acted illegally by withholding assent to several Bills passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly.
In This Article:
A bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud unequivocally stated that the Governor cannot indefinitely delay or withhold assent to Bills duly passed by an elected state government. The apex court deemed the Governor’s actions as “unconstitutional, arbitrary, and violative of federal principles.”
“It is not open to the Governor to keep the Bills pending or refer them to the President without cogent reasons,” remarked the bench.
This verdict marks a major judicial reprimand and a constitutional reaffirmation of the powers and autonomy of elected state governments in India.
Background – A Brewing Crisis Between Raj Bhavan and Fort St. George
The legal battle stems from an ongoing standoff between Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi and the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) government headed by Chief Minister M.K. Stalin. For months, Governor Ravi sat on 10 crucial Bills, including legislation aimed at reforming university governance and other public policies.
Some of these Bills were even returned or forwarded to the President of India — a move that the SC has now termed legally untenable.
According to the Indian Constitution (Article 200), the Governor is bound to act on the advice of the Council of Ministers and must either grant assent, withhold assent, or reserve the Bill for the President — but within a reasonable time frame. Indefinite delays, the court ruled, subvert democratic functioning.
The Court’s Observations – Federalism, Not Feudalism
In strongly worded observations, the Supreme Court made it clear that constitutional offices like the Governor’s must not become tools to paralyze governance.
Key Supreme Court Remarks:
- “Governors are not parallel power centers.”
- “The role of a Governor is to act as a constitutional guardian, not as an obstacle.”
- “Withholding of Bills indefinitely violates the Constitution’s spirit and letter.”
- “Referring Bills to the President without clear reasons reflects non-application of mind.”
Stalin’s Reaction – “Victory for Democracy”
Soon after the judgment, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin welcomed the ruling, calling it a “historic verdict that upholds the values of democracy and federalism.”
He emphasized that the Supreme Court has restored faith in constitutional governance and sent a clear message against authoritarian tendencies.
“The judgment reaffirms the people’s will and protects the sanctity of elected governments. Democracy has won,” said Stalin.
Legal Experts Weigh In
Prominent constitutional experts have hailed the judgment as “a judicial masterstroke” that strengthens India’s federal structure. Many see it as a watershed moment in the evolving balance of power between state governments and Governors — whose roles have often come under scrutiny for political bias.
Key Takeaways by Legal Scholars:
- Ensures that Governors act as facilitators, not gatekeepers.
- Reaffirms the legislative supremacy of elected Assemblies.
- Establishes a clear judicial precedent for future federal disputes.
Political Fallout – What Happens Next?
The verdict is likely to have far-reaching political implications. It sets a precedent not just for Tamil Nadu, but for several other states like Kerala, West Bengal, and Punjab, where Governors and state governments have often locked horns.
In Tamil Nadu, the ruling strengthens the DMK government’s position ahead of the 2026 state assembly elections. It may also embolden calls for reforming or even abolishing the post of Governor, which some regional parties argue is a colonial relic being misused by the Centre.
Moving Forward – Constitution Over Convenience
This Supreme Court verdict is more than a legal milestone — it’s a powerful message reaffirming the core tenets of Indian democracy. It reminds constitutional functionaries that their role is to uphold the law, not play politics.
As India marches forward in its democratic journey, the judiciary has once again proven itself as the ultimate guardian of the Constitution — and the people’s will.
By – Nikita
