SC uses powers, clears 10 TN Bills amid standoff.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Tamil Nadu Governor’s move to send 10 Bills to the President for approval was legally incorrect. The top court held that the Governor’s action was “erroneous in law” and not in line with constitutional provisions. This significant judgment came amid an ongoing confrontation between the Tamil Nadu government and the Governor over the delay in granting assent to state legislation.
On April 8, 2025, the Supreme Court delivered a significant verdict addressing the extended period of inaction by the Tamil Nadu Governor regarding several state legislative bills. This “silence,” which stretched over months and even years, culminated in the Governor withholding assent to multiple bills and referring at least ten of them to the President of India for further review.
The judgment came as part of a broader dispute that has been brewing between the Tamil Nadu government and the Governor for some time. The matter had drawn national attention, highlighting the constitutional tensions that can arise between elected state governments and gubernatorial offices appointed by the Centre. The Supreme Court acknowledged that this deadlock was not new, pointing to a pattern of friction that has developed over a considerable period.
In a move that underscored the judiciary’s role in resolving institutional stand-offs, the Supreme Court intervened decisively. The two-judge Bench, consisting of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, stated that once a Bill passed by the State Legislature is presented again to the Governor after being returned earlier, the Governor is constitutionally obligated to give assent. The Bench made it unequivocally clear: the Governor cannot refuse assent in such cases.
Further, the Court emphasized the need for timely decision-making by the Governor’s office in such legislative matters. The verdict prescribed a specific timeline—ranging from one to three months—for the Governor to act on a Bill sent for assent. This directive is aimed at curbing indefinite delays that can hinder governance and stall the legislative agenda of an elected government.
The controversy reached the highest court following concerns raised by the Tamil Nadu government over the Governor’s prolonged delay in processing bills passed by the State Assembly. The Governor’s recent action of sending ten such bills to the President was seen as a breach of constitutional duties, prompting legal and political criticism.
In its judgment, the Court described the Governor’s decision to escalate the bills to the President as legally flawed. It ruled that such referrals were “erroneous in law” and contradicted the principles enshrined in the Indian Constitution. The judgment reaffirmed the foundational idea of cooperative federalism, stating that Governors must act within their constitutional limits and not disrupt the functioning of elected state governments.
The case has wider implications, not only for Tamil Nadu but also for other Indian states facing similar challenges in their interactions with Governors. The judgment has been seen as a reaffirmation of state autonomy and an assertion of democratic principles, particularly in contexts where Governors have been accused of using their discretionary powers to delay or block state legislation for political or other reasons.
During the hearings, the Union Government was represented by Attorney General R. Venkataramani, while the Tamil Nadu government was represented by a team of senior legal experts, including senior advocates A.M. Singhvi, Rakesh Dwivedi, P. Wilson, and advocate Sabarish Subramanian. Their arguments revolved around the sanctity of legislative processes and the need to protect democratic norms from being undermined by bureaucratic or political interference.
The Tamil Nadu government had earlier accused the Governor of undermining its authority by failing to process legislation in a timely manner. This included key bills related to higher education, university governance, and social welfare policies. The delay in assenting to these bills, and the eventual move to refer them to the President, was interpreted as a deliberate strategy to block the state’s initiatives.
The Supreme Court’s verdict is expected to have a significant impact on future relations between state governments and Governors across India. Legal experts have hailed the ruling as a necessary clarification of constitutional roles and responsibilities, particularly under Article 200 of the Constitution, which outlines the Governor’s options when presented with a Bill passed by the State Legislature.
The Court’s ruling essentially places a check on arbitrary use of gubernatorial powers and reinforces the principle that Governors are expected to act in accordance with the advice of the elected state government, except in clearly defined exceptional circumstances.
The ruling also sends a message that the constitutional role of the Governor is not that of a political actor but of a neutral arbiter who ensures smooth legislative functioning. The Court’s observations are likely to encourage a more restrained and constitutionally faithful approach from Governors in the future, helping to reduce political friction and administrative delays.
This development marks a key moment in the evolving discourse around federalism in India. As more states express concerns over the conduct of Governors, this ruling could serve as a precedent in reinforcing the balance of power between state governments and the office of the Governor.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s intervention may not only resolve the ongoing standoff in Tamil Nadu but could also set the tone for more harmonious Centre-State relations nationwide. As the case continues to resonate across the political spectrum, the judgment is likely to be viewed as a landmark affirmation of the Constitution’s spirit and the democratic values it seeks to uphold.