Constitutional Clarity: Supreme Court's Verdict on Tamil Nadu Governor's Powers

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India has addressed the contentious issue of gubernatorial discretion in state legislation, particularly focusing on the actions of the Tamil Nadu Governor. This ruling has significant implications for the balance of power between state governments and governors across the country.​

Background: The Legislative Impasse in Tamil Nadu

Between January 2020 and April 2023, the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly passed 12 bills aimed at reforming the governance of state universities, including changes to the appointment process of Vice-Chancellors. These bills were submitted to Governor R.N. Ravi for assent. However, the Governor withheld assent for 10 of these bills and reserved 2 for the President's consideration, leading to a legislative stalemate. ​

In response, the Tamil Nadu government reintroduced and re-passed the 10 bills in November 2023, asserting the primacy of the elected legislature. Despite this, the Governor continued to withhold assent, prompting the state to file a writ petition in the Supreme Court in October 2023. ​

Supreme Court's Verdict: Defining the Governor's Role

On April 8, 2025, a two-judge bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan delivered a decisive verdict:​

• Limiting Gubernatorial Discretion: The Court held that the Governor does not possess an "absolute veto" or "pocket veto" power over state legislation. Once a bill is re-passed by the legislature, the Governor is constitutionally obligated to grant assent. ​

• Invalidating the Governor's Actions: The Court deemed the Governor's decision to reserve the re-passed bills for the President's consideration as "illegal" and "erroneous in law."

• Establishing Timelines: To prevent future delays, the Court prescribed specific timelines under Article 200 of the Constitution

  • If the Governor decides to withhold assent or reserve the bill for the President, such action must be taken within one month.​

  • If the Governor withholds assent contrary to the advice of the Council of Ministers, the bill must be returned to the legislature within three months.​

  • If the Governor reserves the bill for the President, again contrary to advice, this too must be done within three months. ​

    
    

Broader Implications: Strengthening Federalism

This verdict reinforces the foundational principles of India's federal structure:​

• Democratic Accountability: By curbing the discretionary powers of governors, the Court has emphasized the supremacy of elected state legislatures in the legislative process. ​

• Precedent for Other States: The ruling sets a legal precedent that may influence similar disputes in other states where governors have withheld assent to state legislation. 

• Judicial Oversight: The decision underscores the judiciary's role in maintaining the constitutional balance between different branches of government.​

  
  

In conclusion, the Supreme Court's verdict delineates the constitutional boundaries of gubernatorial authority, ensuring that the democratic will of the people, as expressed through their elected representatives, is upheld. This decision not only resolves the legislative impasse in Tamil Nadu but also fortifies the principles of federalism and democratic governance across India.​