The Supreme Court on Thursday expressed strong disapproval of Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi’s prolonged delay in granting assent to bills passed by the state legislature, framing eight key questions to clarify the constitutional boundaries of a governor’s powers.
Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, who presided over the case, pointed out that Governor Ravi appears to have adopted his “own procedure” for handling the bills, which has led to significant delays, some lasting up to three years. This practice, the justices noted, has potentially rendered part of Article 200 of the Constitution—concerning the governor’s assent to state bills—ineffective, as it undermines the state legislature’s ability to enact laws.
The court’s remarks came during a hearing on two petitions filed by the Tamil Nadu government. These petitions challenge the governor’s refusal to assent to several bills and, in some instances, his decision to refer them to the President years after they were passed by the state assembly.
The bench sought to explore the extent of gubernatorial discretion under Article 200, particularly whether a governor can indefinitely withhold assent—a tactic informally known as a “pocket veto.” Additionally, the justices questioned whether the governor is constitutionally obligated to grant assent once a bill is reconsidered and passed again by the legislature.
During the proceedings, the court critically questioned Attorney General R Venkataramani, who represented Governor Ravi’s office, about the rationale behind the lengthy delays. “What is so gross in the bills that took the Governor three years to decide?” Justice Pardiwala asked, highlighting the inconsistency in the governor’s actions, as only two bills were referred to the President while others were withheld without clear justification.
The bench also examined whether the governor’s discretion to present a bill to the President is limited to specific constitutional matters or extends beyond those areas. Moreover, they debated the factors that should influence a governor’s decision to refer a bill to the President instead of granting assent.
This judicial scrutiny is set against a backdrop of frequent clashes between Raj Bhavans and state governments in various non-BJP ruled states, including Punjab, Telangana, Tamil Nadu, and Kerala. The Supreme Court has repeatedly intervened, urging governors to expedite their decision-making processes and admonishing them in some instances for attempts to undermine the authority of democratically elected governments.
