The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday exercised its discretionary powers to implement ten pending bills in the Indian state of Tamil Nadu, marking a significant intervention in a prolonged constitutional deadlock between the state government and Governor RN Ravi, who was appointed by New Delhi.
During hearings, the Supreme Court criticized the governor’s lack of transparency and communication, questioning whether his indefinite withholding of assent was constitutionally permissible. The court emphasized that governors cannot sit on bills indefinitely or act unilaterally without informing the state legislature about their concerns regarding repugnancy with central laws. Justice J.B. Pardiwala remarked that withholding assent without explanation amounts to creating a legislative deadlock, which is against constitutional principles.
The apex court’s decision comes after months of legislative impasse, where the governor withheld assent to bills passed by the Tamil Nadu Assembly without providing adequate communication or justification. The bills in question, submitted between 2020 and 2023, primarily address administrative reforms, including provisions for appointing vice-chancellors in state universities and restructuring governance mechanisms.
Despite repeated re-enactments and reconsiderations by the Assembly, the governor either withheld consent or referred some bills to the President, leading to accusations of constitutional subversion under Article 200 of the Constitution of India, which governs a governor’s powers to grant, withhold, or reserve assent for bills passed by the state legislature. Tamil Nadu’s government argued that such delays violated constitutional norms, prompting it to approach the Supreme Court in November 2023.
The apex court’s intervention has broader implications for center-state relations and the constitutional role of governors. It highlights recurring tensions in non-Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP)-ruled states like Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Punjab, and Telangana, where governors have been accused of stalling state legislation. Compounding this issue is the strained relationship between state governments and governors in India’s federal system. Governors are often perceived as representatives of the central government rather than impartial constitutional authorities. This perception has fueled political confrontations in states governed by opposition parties, where governors have been accused of obstructing legislative processes.
