New Delhi: The Supreme Court on April 11, 2025 passed the landmark judgement declaring the Tamil Nadu governor R.N. Ravi’s actions to stall the DMK government’s bills were “erroneous and illegal” but what it went on to assert was even more significant. It held that no governor has the power to indefinitely override decisions made by the legislature that have an elected mandate and are directly accountable to people.

Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan in their 414-page order detailed multiple court precedents that have discussed the role of the governor, and held that the constitution has defined the role of the governor clearly in the Article 200, beyond which they do not possess any discretionary powers as the Tamil Nadu governor had exercised during his tenure.   

The order read:

“With the framers of the Constitution set out with a vision that the governor would be “a constitutional head, a sagacious counsellor, and adviser to the ministry”, someone who can “pour oil over troubled waters”, what has unfolded before us in the instant litigation has been quite the opposite…" 

The conflict between the Tamil Nadu government and governor R.N. Ravi had caught widespread attention, with the M.K. Stalin-led Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam government alleging that the governor defied the constitution by withholding assent to as many as 13 bills and executive decisions. 

The Supreme Court gave its stamp of approval to the DMK government and spelt out the illegalities made by Ravi – a decision that can possibly have an impact on similar confrontations between state governments and governors in states like Kerala and West Bengal. 

The apex court said:

“The conduct exhibited on part of the Governor, as it clearly appears from the events that have transpired even during the course of the present litigation, has been lacking in bonafides. There have been clear instances where the Governor has failed in showing due deference and respect to the judgments and directions of this Court. In such a situation, it is difficult for us to repose our trust and remand the matter to the Governor with a direction to dispose of the bills in accordance with the observations made by us in this judgment.”

“No authority, in exercise of its powers, or to put it precisely, in discharge of its duties, must attempt to breach the constitutional firewall. The office of the Governor is no exception to this supreme command,” it further said, adding that the courts have the right to intervene in such matters under the powers given to them under Article 142.  

The order said:

“…[I]t is only after deepest of deliberations, and having reached at the firm conclusion that the actions of the Governor – first in exhibiting prolonged inaction over the bills; secondly in declaring a simpliciter withholding of assent and returning the bills without a message; and thirdly in reserving the bills for the President in the second round – were all in clear violation of the procedure envisaged under the Constitution…"

While concluding thus, the judges gave their assent to the 10 bills that had been withheld by Ravi “without any delay”.

More importantly, the order, perhaps, for the first time prescribed timelines for the governor to comply – in an attempt to prevent inordinate delays in implementation of executive decisions and legislation because of the governor’s role in the federal polity of the country.

“Failure to comply with these timelines would make the inaction of the Governors subject to judicial review by the courts,” the judges said in the order. 

It added timelines:

"(i) In case of either withholding of assent or reservation of the bill for the consideration of the President, upon the aid and advice of the State Council of Ministers, the Governor is expected to take such an action forthwith, subject to a maximum period of one-month;

"(ii) In case of withholding of assent contrary to the advice of the State Council of Ministers, the Governor must return the bill together with a message within a maximum period of three- months;

"(iii) In case of reservation of bills for the consideration of the President contrary to the advice of the State Council of Ministers, the Governor shall make such reservation within a maximum period of three months;

"(iv) In case of presentation of a bill after reconsideration in accordance with the first proviso, the Governor must grant assent forthwith, subject to a maximum period of one-month.

 Article 200 of the constitution, the Governor does not possess any discretion in the exercise of his functions and has to mandatorily abide by the advice tendered to him by the Council of Ministers. The only exceptions to this general rule are as follows:

The order also held that the President does not have the power of a ‘pocket veto’ or ‘absolute veto’ under Article 201. In the current case, some of the bills were withheld by President after being referred to by governor Ravi. 

“The constitutional scheme does not, in any manner, provide that a constitutional authority can exercise its powers under the Constitution arbitrarily,” the court said. 

The court added, “We are in no way undermining the office of the Governor. All we say is that the Governor must act with due deference to the settled conventions of parliamentary democracy; respecting the will of the people being expressed through the legislature as-well as the elected government responsible to the people.”

“He must perform his role of a friend, philosopher and guide with dispassion, guided not by considerations of political expediency but by the sanctity of the constitutional oath he undertakes,” the order said.

“In times of conflict, he must be the harbinger of consensus and resolution, lubricating the functioning of the State machinery by his sagacity, wisdom and not run it into a standstill. He must be the catalyst and not an inhibitor. All his actions must be impelled keeping in mind the dignity of the high constitutional office that he occupies,” the order said.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.