Gubernatorial Overreach

With its landmark decision on Tamil Nadu’s Governor, the Supreme Court has reined in the powers of Governors while reasserting the primacy of elected state governments in a federal democracy.

Tamil Nadu

The Supreme Court has struck a decisive blow against creeping gubernatorial overreach when it ruled that Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi had acted “illegally” and “arbitrarily” by withholding assent and subsequently reserving ten state Bills for the President’s consideration after they had already been re-passed by the state Assembly. In doing so, the court has not merely resolved a Tamil Nadu-centric dispute, but has also fortified the edifice of Indian federalism.

The ruling has far-reaching implications. It reaffirms that Governors, unelected appointees of the Centre, must act within the confines of constitutional morality and in alignment with democratic principles. The Supreme Court’s bench also prescribed strict timelines for gubernatorial action to prevent future constitutional logjams.

At the heart of the verdict lies Article 200 of the Indian Constitution. This provision lays out a Governor’s options when a Bill passed by a state legislature is presented for assent: grant it, withhold it, return it for reconsideration or reserve it for the President. But critically, it also says that if the legislature passes the Bill again, the Governor shall not withhold assent. What was hitherto ambiguous - the timeframe for such assent - has now been clarified. A one-month deadline is now imposed for withholding assent or reserving the Bill with the aid of the Council of Ministers; three months if done without it. Most significantly, once the Assembly re-passes a Bill, the Governor must act within a month. Failure to do so will open the door to judicial scrutiny.

The case is emblematic of an ongoing friction in Indian federalism. Tamil Nadu’s DMK-led government under M.K. Stalin has long accused RN Ravi of acting as a political agent of the BJP-led Union government, not as a neutral constitutional authority. Since his appointment in 2021, Ravi has had testy relations with Fort St. George, frequently stalling legislation and public appointments, and refusing to read sections of his customary Assembly address that reference icons of the Dravidian movement.

In January 2023, Ravi made national headlines by staging a walkout during his address to the Assembly over the sequencing of the national anthem.

A year prior, he skipped sections of a speech that mentioned social reformers like B.R. Ambedkar and Periyar. His ideological divergence from the DMK was no secret. While political disagreement is par for the course in a democracy, the use of constitutional office to wage partisan battles is not. The Supreme Court’s ruling is thus a stern reminder that Governors are not viceroys.

This episode also revives long-standing concerns over the appointment and role of Governors. Appointed by the President (effectively the Centre) under Article 155, and serving at the President’s pleasure (Article 156), Governors have often been accused of political bias, especially in opposition-ruled states. Their discretionary powers are limited; Article 163 clearly states that they must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, barring a few exceptional circumstances. Yet, the absence of defined timelines and mechanisms to enforce accountability has allowed some to act with impunity, safe in the knowledge that they answer not to the electorate but to New Delhi.

The verdict offers a constitutional course correction. By invoking Article 142, the bench not only set aside the Governor’s actions but effectively granted assent to the Bills themselves. It also lays the groundwork for what may become a broader legal doctrine: that constitutional offices must function within the spirit of parliamentary democracy, and that delay or obstruction can be as unconstitutional as outright defiance.

The court was careful to clarify that it was not undermining the Governor’s constitutional position. Instead, it has sought to rescue that office from political misuse.

The verdict sends a clear message to the Union government that India’s democracy rests on the consent of the governed, not the discretion of appointed officials. And when that consent is subverted, the judiciary will not remain a passive spectator.