New Delhi: In a historic ruling that could redefine Centre-state relations, the Supreme Court has held that Governors cannot indefinitely withhold bills passed by the state legislatures. The verdict came in response to a petition filed by the Tamil Nadu government against Governor RN Ravi, who had kept several bills passed by the Tamil Nadu Assembly pending without assent or action.
The apex court made it clear that a Governor must act on bills within a “reasonable time” and set a maximum time frame of three months for taking a decision—either by granting assent, withholding assent, returning the bill, or referring it to the President. The court said indefinite delay is unconstitutional and undermines the democratic process.
The case drew widespread attention due to the strained relationship between Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi and the DMK-led government under Chief Minister MK Stalin. Since assuming office in 2021, Ravi, a former IPS officer and ex-CBI official, has frequently clashed with the state government on various issues, from NEET exemption to ideological disagreements.
The Supreme Court bench, while delivering its verdict, criticized the Governor’s inaction and emphasized that Governors are bound to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. It also stated that the Indian Constitution does not grant Governors any absolute veto powers over state legislation.
Quoting Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the court underlined that a good Constitution can be rendered ineffective by those tasked with its implementation. The bench allowed the ten pending bills in Tamil Nadu to move forward, reinforcing the supremacy of the legislative process.
The ruling has been hailed by constitutional experts as a major step in strengthening federalism and democratic governance in India. It also puts pressure on Governors in other states where similar standoffs with state governments exist.
