The Supreme Court of India, in a significant constitutional judgment delivered on 8 April 2025, held that Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi's prolonged withholding of assent to ten state legislative bills was illegal and erroneous. A Division Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan unanimously ruled that the Governor had exceeded his constitutional authority under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution. The Court invoked Article 142 to deem the pending bills as having received assent.
Background
The dispute arose from a prolonged standoff between the Tamil Nadu state government and Governor R.N. Ravi. The State Legislative Assembly had passed multiple bills, including the Tamil Nadu Universities Laws (Amendment) Bill, which was approved on 11 May 2022. The Governor failed to act on several of these bills for over seventeen months, neither granting assent, returning them to the Assembly with a message, nor reserving them for the President.
The State of Tamil Nadu approached the Supreme Court challenging the Governor's inaction as unconstitutional. The core constitutional question concerned the scope of gubernatorial discretion under Article 200, which sets out three options available to a Governor upon receipt of a bill: grant assent, withhold assent and return the bill with a message for reconsideration, or reserve the bill for presidential consideration.
Key Holdings
The Supreme Court laid down the following principles regarding the Governor's role in the legislative process:
No indefinite withholding: The Governor cannot indefinitely sit on bills passed by the State Legislature. Article 200 contemplates prompt action, and prolonged inaction is constitutionally impermissible.
Three options are exhaustive: Under Article 200, the Governor must either grant assent, return the bill to the Legislature with a message for reconsideration, or reserve it for the President. There is no fourth option of indefinite withholding.
Reservation after reconsideration barred: Once the Legislature has reconsidered a returned bill and re-passed it in the same form, the Governor cannot then reserve it for the President. At this stage, the Governor is constitutionally expected to grant assent.
Deemed assent under Article 142: Exercising its extraordinary powers under Article 142, the Court held that the ten bills pending before the Governor and those reserved for the President were deemed to have received assent, restoring the legislative will of the State Assembly.
Implications for Practitioners
This judgment carries substantial implications for Centre-State relations and federal governance. The ruling effectively narrows the scope of gubernatorial discretion in the legislative process, treating prolonged inaction as a constitutional violation rather than a legitimate exercise of discretion.
For constitutional law practitioners, the invocation of Article 142 to create a deemed assent mechanism is particularly noteworthy. The Court has effectively fashioned a remedy that the Constitution itself does not expressly provide, filling a gap in the constitutional scheme where no timeline for gubernatorial action exists. This could serve as precedent in similar disputes involving other states where Governors have been accused of delaying assent to bills.
State governments that have faced similar obstructionism from Governors now have a clear judicial pathway. The ruling confirms that prolonged withholding of assent is justiciable and that courts can intervene to protect the legislative process.
However, practitioners should note that the judgment may face scrutiny in future larger bench proceedings, given the broader constitutional implications for the Governor's role. The interplay between this ruling and the presidential reference on gubernatorial powers that was subsequently taken up deserves close monitoring, as any advisory opinion could modify the framework established in this decision.