The Supreme Court of India, hearing the State of Tamil Nadu's petition challenging the inaction of Governor R.N. Ravi on pending legislative Bills, noted with concern in November 2023 that the Governor had acted on the pendency only after the institution of proceedings before the Court. The Bench, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, observed on 29 November 2023 that the Governor's decision to reserve some of the Bills for the President's consideration, without granting or withholding assent, was a matter requiring careful constitutional scrutiny.
Background
On 31 October 2023, the Government of Tamil Nadu filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging Governor R.N. Ravi's indefinite delay in acting upon Bills passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly. Multiple Bills had been pending consideration before the Governor for extended periods, with some pending for over a year.
On 10 November 2023, the Supreme Court, hearing the matter alongside analogous petitions from Punjab and Kerala, observed that Governors cannot "virtually veto" Bills by indefinitely withholding action. On 13 November 2023 — three days after the Supreme Court's observation — the Tamil Nadu Governor acted on the pending Bills, withholding assent to ten Bills and reserving two Bills for the consideration of the President.
In response, the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly was convened in a special session on 18 November 2023, during which all ten Bills that were denied assent were re-introduced, re-passed, and transmitted to the Governor's Secretariat on the same day. The Governor, on 28 November 2023, reserved some of the re-passed Bills for the President's consideration rather than granting assent.
Key Holdings
The Court's proceedings through November 2023 produced the following significant observations:
Governor acted only under judicial pressure: The Court noted that the Governor's decision to act on the pending Bills came only after the matter was listed before the Supreme Court. This sequence raised questions about whether the constitutional obligation to act on Bills was being treated as discretionary rather than mandatory.
Reservation for President questioned: The Court sought to understand why the Governor was reserving Bills for the President's consideration under Article 201 rather than granting or withholding assent under Article 200. The constitutional scheme contemplates reservation for the President as an exception, not as a routine device to delay state legislation.
Re-passed Bills cannot be indefinitely stalled: The Court's framework, building on its 10 November observations, indicated that when a state legislature re-passes a Bill after gubernatorial withholding of assent, the Governor's options are further constrained — the constitutional scheme does not permit endless cycling between withholding assent and reservation.
Union Government response sought: The Court directed the Union Government to file its response, recognising that the Governor's actions implicated the Centre-State relationship and required the Union's position on the constitutional questions involved.
Implications for Practitioners
Constitutional law practitioners should recognise this matter as part of a broader pattern of Centre-State friction manifesting through gubernatorial action on state legislation. The Court's observations, while not yet resulting in a final binding judgment, carry persuasive authority and establish the framework within which future disputes over gubernatorial delay will be assessed.
For state governments facing similar challenges, the Tamil Nadu proceedings provide a template for approaching the Supreme Court under Article 32. The Court's willingness to examine the Governor's conduct and issue directions indicates that gubernatorial inaction on Bills is justiciable and amenable to judicial review.
Practitioners should note that the Court's final ruling on the substantive constitutional questions — including the scope of the Governor's power to reserve re-passed Bills for the President — remained pending and would be addressed in subsequent proceedings.