In April 2025, the Supreme Court of India made a significant ruling in a case involving the Tamil Nadu government and its Governor, RN Ravi. This case was about how the Governor handled certain bills passed by the Tamil Nadu state legislature. The court’s decision clarified the powers and responsibilities of Governors in India, ensuring they act in line with the Constitution. Let’s break down the major outcomes of this case in simple terms and explain why it matters.
What Was the Issue?
In India, state legislatures (like the Tamil Nadu Assembly) pass bills to make laws. These bills are sent to the Governor, who has three main options under Article 200 of the Constitution:
Approve the bill (give assent).
Send it back to the legislature for reconsideration.
Reserve it for the President of India to review.
In Tamil Nadu, Governor RN Ravi delayed action on 10 bills, some pending since 2020. These bills were important, covering topics like appointing Vice-Chancellors (heads) of state universities. Instead of deciding quickly, the Governor waited for months or years and then sent the bills to the President after the legislature re-passed them. The Tamil Nadu government, led by Chief Minister MK Stalin, argued that this delay was unfair and against the Constitution. They took the issue to the Supreme Court.
What Did the Supreme Court Decide?
The Supreme Court’s ruling addressed the Governor’s actions and set clear guidelines for the future. Here are the major outcomes:
1. Governor’s Actions Were Illegal
The court said Governor RN Ravi’s delay in acting on the 10 bills was “illegal” and “arbitrary.” After the Tamil Nadu Assembly re-passed the bills, the Governor sent them to the President, which the court ruled was wrong. The Constitution says that if a bill is re-passed by the legislature, the Governor must approve it unless it’s a rare case affecting the High Court’s powers. By reserving the bills for the President, the Governor ignored this rule.
2. Bills Were Deemed Approved
To fix the issue, the Supreme Court used its special powers under Article 142 to declare that the 10 bills were considered approved from the date they were re-sent to the Governor. This was a bold move to ensure the state’s laws could move forward without further delay. The court also said any actions taken by the President (like approving one bill or rejecting others) were invalid because the Governor’s referral was unconstitutional.
3. No “Pocket Veto” Allowed
The court clarified that Governors cannot use a “pocket veto.” This term means sitting on a bill indefinitely without making a decision. The Constitution expects Governors to act quickly—either approve, return, or reserve a bill. Delaying for years, as the Governor did, undermines democracy because it blocks laws made by elected representatives.
4. Strict Timelines for Governors
To prevent future delays, the Supreme Court set clear deadlines for Governors:
If a Governor wants to withhold approval (on the advice of the state’s Council of Ministers), they must decide within one month.
If they withhold approval without the Council’s advice, they have three months to return the bill with reasons.
If the legislature re-passes a bill, the Governor must approve it within one month.
These timelines ensure Governors act promptly and don’t stall the legislative process.
5. Governors Must Act in Good Faith
The court criticized the Governor for not acting in “good faith.” For example, he sent the bills to the President only after the Supreme Court started questioning his delays, suggesting he was trying to avoid responsibility. The court said Governors must respect the will of the people, expressed through elected legislatures, and not create obstacles.
6. Judicial Review of Governor’s Actions
The ruling made it clear that Governors’ actions can be challenged in court. If a Governor delays or misuses their powers, the courts can step in to correct it. This strengthens accountability and ensures Governors follow the Constitution.
Why Does This Matter?
This case is a big deal because it protects the balance between state governments and Governors. In India, Governors are appointed by the President (on the advice of the central government) and act as a link between the state and the Union. However, they are not supposed to interfere with the state’s elected government unless absolutely necessary. The Supreme Court’s ruling ensures Governors don’t overstep their role or delay laws for political reasons.
The decision also strengthens India’s federal system, where states have the power to make laws on certain subjects (like education, as in this case). By setting timelines and clarifying rules, the court has made it harder for Governors to block state laws without valid reasons. This is especially important in states where the ruling party differs from the central government, as political tensions can lead to conflicts between Governors and state leaders.
Impact Beyond Tamil Nadu
The Tamil Nadu case sets a precedent (a guiding example) for other states. Similar issues have arisen in states like Kerala, Punjab, and Telangana, where Governors delayed bills. This ruling will help resolve such disputes and ensure smoother governance across India. It reminds Governors to act as neutral constitutional figures, not as agents of the central government or any political party.
Importance for UPSC and State PCS Exams
This topic is highly relevant for aspirants preparing for the UPSC Civil Services Exam and State Public Service Commission (PCS) exams for several reasons:
Indian Polity and Governance: The case directly relates to the constitutional provisions under Article 200 (Governor’s powers over bills) and Article 142 (Supreme Court’s powers). Understanding the roles of Governors, state legislatures, and the judiciary is crucial for the Polity section of these exams.
Federalism: The ruling reinforces cooperative federalism, a key concept in Indian governance. Questions on Centre-state relations, the role of Governors, and federal disputes are common in both Prelims and Mains.
Judicial Review: The case highlights the judiciary’s role in checking the misuse of power by constitutional authorities. This is a recurring theme in exam questions about checks and balances.
Current Affairs: The case was a major news event in 2025, making it a potential topic for Mains essay questions or Prelims current affairs. It also connects to broader issues like Governor-state conflicts in other states.
Mains Answer Writing: For GS Paper 2 (Polity and Governance), aspirants can use this case to discuss judicial activism, federalism, or the Governor’s discretionary powers. It provides a strong example to support arguments.
Interview Stage: In the UPSC interview, candidates may be asked about recent Supreme Court judgments or the evolving role of Governors. This case offers a clear, impactful example to discuss.
How to Approach This Topic for Exams:
Prelims: Memorize key facts like Article 200, Article 142, the timelines set by the court, and the term “pocket veto.” Link it to other Governor-related controversies.
Mains: Practice writing answers on federalism, Governor’s powers, or judicial intervention using this case as an example. Connect it to constitutional principles and other states’ experiences.
Interview: Be ready to explain the case simply, focusing on its impact on democracy and federalism. Avoid taking political sides; emphasize constitutional clarity.
By studying this case, aspirants can deepen their understanding of India’s governance system and prepare effectively for questions on constitutional roles, federal relations, and recent developments.
