The Supreme Court on Wednesday pulled up Tamil Nadu governor RN Ravi for attempting to thwart the will of an elected legislature, declared his decision to reserve 10 re-passed bills for presidential assent as “illegal”, and laid down timelines to curb inaction by governors across the country, in a landmark judgment that seeks to reassert constitutional discipline, curtail gubernatorial overreach, and reiterate India’s federalism.
Calling out what it described as a “growing and dangerous” trend of governors creating political roadblocks to frustrate state governments, a bench of justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan underlined that governors must function within the four corners of the Constitution and not derail the democratic will of the people expressed through their elected representatives.
“The governor must be conscious to not create roadblocks or chokehold the state legislature in order to thwart and break the will of the people for political considerations,” said the bench, holding that Ravi’s actions lacked bona fides and amounted to an impermissible “pocket veto”.
It ruled that the 10 bills — re-passed by the Tamil Nadu assembly after initially being withheld — were deemed to have received the governor’s assent on the day they were returned to him, setting aside any contrary action taken subsequently.
Tamil Nadu chief minister M K Stalin welcomed the verdict, hailing it as “historic” and a victory for all state governments. “We thank and welcome today’s historic judgment of the Supreme Court, reaffirming the legislative rights of state legislatures and putting an end to the trend of Union government-nominated governors stalling progressive legislative reforms in Opposition-ruled states,” he said.
Following the verdict, attorney general R Venkataramani, appearing for the governor’s office, requested time to return on the issue of the court invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 142 to deem the bills passed — a matter that may continue to unfold.
Senior counsel Rakesh Dwivedi, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Mukul Rohatgi and P Wilson appeared for the Tamil Nadu government, which had assailed the governor’s decision in the apex court.
The verdict comes in the wake of prolonged tensions between Tamil Nadu’s DMK-led government and governor Ravi, who had withheld assent to several state bills — some for over two years — and later forwarded 10 of them to the President after the assembly re-enacted them.
The ruling is likely to reverberate beyond Tamil Nadu. Similar standoffs between governors and state governments have played out in Punjab, Kerala, Telangana and West Bengal, where Raj Bhavans have come under fire for allegedly obstructing the legislative process. By reaffirming that governors must act on the advice of elected governments and within a timeline fixed by it, the court has redefined the contours of gubernatorial power in a federal setup.
Drawing from constitutional morality and democratic principles, the bench emphasised that a governor is not a parallel power centre but a constitutional functionary who must act as a “friend, philosopher and guide”, facilitating the functioning of the state machinery with sagacity and impartiality.
“He must be the catalyst and not an inhibitor,” said the court, adding that any attempt by a governor to deliberately bypass or delay assent to legislation threatens the very ideals on which the Indian Republic stands.
The bench stressed that the constitutional oath taken by a governor demands fidelity to the values of the Constitution, not political expediency. “Any action contrary to the express choice of the people, in other words, the state legislature, would be a renege of his constitutional oath,” it said.
At the heart of the ruling was the interpretation of Article 200 of the Constitution, which empowers a governor to either assent to, withhold assent, or reserve a bill for the President’s consideration. Crucially, the bench ruled that the Constitution does not permit a governor to sit indefinitely on a bill — there is “no scope of inaction” under Article 200.
Rejecting the idea of a “pocket veto”, the court noted that the phrase “as soon as possible” imbues Article 200 with a sense of urgency, compelling the governor to act promptly. It also held that there is “no room for an absolute veto”—meaning the governor cannot simply reject a bill without returning it with suggestions.
Reiterating foundational constitutional principles, the bench ruled that the governor must act on the aid and advice of the council of ministers and does not enjoy any discretionary powers under Article 200. “Any discretion available to the governor under the Government of India Act, 1935, became unavailable on the implementation of the Constitution,” said the court.
It also rejected the argument that the first proviso to Article 200, which permits a governor to reserve a bill for the President, creates an independent route. Instead, it must be read in conjunction with withholding assent and not as a separate power, the court noted.
“The concept of an absolute veto or a pocket veto is alien to our constitutional scheme. Whenever a bill is presented, the governor is constitutionally bound to adopt one of the three options under Article 200 — assent, withhold, or reserve,” said justice Pardiwala. A governor cannot, the court said, simply sit on a bill or send it to the President after withholding assent without returning it to the assembly.
Since the bills passed by the Tamil Nadu assembly were pending with the governor for an “unduly long period” and he “did not act in good faith”, the court said it was a fit case to invoke its extraordinary powers under Article 142 to deem all 10 bills as assented to by the governor on the date they were re-presented to him after reconsideration.
Timelines for Governor’s assent:
The top court also laid down specific timelines. If acting on the advice of the state cabinet, the governor must assent, withhold assent, or reserve the bill for the President within one month, held the bench. It added that if withholding assent is contrary to cabinet advice, the governor must return the bill with a message within three months. The judgment further held that if the governor is reserving the bill for the President contrary to cabinet advice, such reservation must also happen within three months. Similarly, if the bill is re-passed by the legislature, the governor must grant assent within one month. Any violation of these timelines, the court warned, would attract judicial review and scrutiny by constitutional courts.
In the Tamil Nadu case, the Court found that the governor’s decision to re-reserve the repassed bills for the President’s consideration was “illegal, erroneous in law, and not bona fide”. Consequently, any action taken by the President on these bills was also set aside.
.