The Supreme Court on Friday directed the Tamil Nadu government to wait for the outcome of a pending Presidential Reference before proceeding with its plea challenging Governor R N Ravi’s decision to refer the Tamil Nadu Physical Education and Sports University (Amendment) Bill, 2025 to the President, instead of granting assent.
A bench of Chief Justice B. R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran made it clear that the state’s challenge will be taken up only after the Constitution Bench delivers its judgment on the reference, which is expected before November 21 — the date of Chief Justice Gavai’s retirement.
“You will have to wait for the outcome of the Presidential Reference. You will have to wait hardly for four weeks. The reference has to be decided before November 21,” the bench said.
The Tamil Nadu government moved the apex court after Governor Ravi, on July 14, 2025, reserved the Bill for the President’s consideration, citing alleged conflicts with Clause 7.3 of the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations, 2018. The Bill had been sent to the Governor for assent on May 6, 2025, along with the Chief Minister’s advice to approve it.
In its petition, the state has described the Governor’s action as “patently unconstitutional, violative of Articles 163(1) and 200 of the Constitution, and void ab initio.”
The case is closely linked to a Presidential Reference on whether constitutional courts can impose timelines on Governors and the President for granting assent to Bills passed by state legislatures. The Supreme Court reserved its judgment on this reference on September 11, 2025.
The bench indicated that the decision in the Tamil Nadu matter hinges on the outcome of this reference.
During the hearing, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Tamil Nadu, argued that the Governor has no authority to refer the Bill to the President after receiving the “aid and advice” of the Council of Ministers.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, opposing the plea, told the court that between 2015 and 2025, Governors across the country have referred a total of 381 Bills to the President.
“If this is to be justiciable, my lords will have two separate benches permanently for deciding these issues,” Mehta remarked.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, also for the state, submitted that the Governor’s role is not to sit in judicial scrutiny over each clause of a Bill.
“The question today is whether the Governor can examine every clause like a judge,” Rohatgi argued.
The Supreme Court will hear Tamil Nadu’s challenge after the Constitution Bench delivers its verdict on the Presidential Reference, expected in November. The outcome of that decision is likely to shape the contours of the Governor’s discretionary powers in dealing with state legislation.
