Tamil Nadu Governor case: The Supreme Court reminded constitutional authorities occupying high offices that they must be guided by the values of the Constitution. File
| Photo Credit: M. Periasamy
The Supreme Court, close to midnight on Friday (April 11, 2025), published its much-anticipated judgment declaring Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi’s months’ long delay, withholding consent and subsequent reservation of the 10 re-passed Bills to President Droupadi Murmu for her consideration on November 28, 2023 “erroneous in law and non-est”.
The Court equally set aside consequential steps taken by President Murmu on the Bills as non-est.
The Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan said the Governor’s inaction for an unduly long period of time for which these Bills were kept pending by him, his ultimate declaration of withholding of assent coupled with the scant respect shown by him to judgments of the Supreme Court for adherence to aid and advice of the State’s Council of Ministers showed “other extraneous considerations” writ large in the discharge of his functions.
“We are left with no other option but to exercise our inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution for the purpose of declaring these 10 Bills as deemed to have been assented on the date when they were presented to the Governor after being reconsidered by the State legislature i.e., on November 18, 2023,” the court declared..
The judgment had been pronounced in open court on April 8, but was not published until now.
Editorial | Legal milestone: The Supreme Court and the Tamil Nadu Governor
In the judgment, the Supreme Court has held that reservation of a Bill by a Governor for the consideration of the President on grounds like his personal dissatisfaction, political expediency or any other “extraneous or irrelevant considerations” is strictly impermissible by the Constitution.
A Governor’s reference of a Bill to the President for these reasons would be liable to be set aside forthwith by the constitutional courts.
The Court explained that reservation of a Bill for consideration of the President would be solely on the grounds of great peril to democratic principles with clearly assigned reasons.
“Where the reservation of a Bill by the Governor for the consideration of the President is on the grounds of peril to democracy or democratic principles or on other exceptional grounds then the Governor would be expected to make a specific and clear reference to the President properly indicating the reasons for entertaining such a belief by pinpointing thespecific provisions in this regard and the consequent effect that may ensue if such a Bill were to be allowed to become a law,” the judgment noted.
The Governor while making such a reference should also indicate his subjective satisfaction as to why the aforesaid consequences that may ensue cannot be possibly curtailed or contained by taking recourse to the constitutional courts of the country, Justice Pardiwala observed.
State governments can challenge such a reservation on the ground of failure on part of the Governor to furnish the necessary reasons.
They can argue that the reasons indicated by the Governor in question were wholly irrelevant, mala-fide, arbitrary, unnecessary or motivated by extraneous considerations. The issue would be “fully justiciable” by constitutional courts.
The State government can approach the competent court with a writ of mandamus if a Governor sits on a Bill for a period exceeding the time limit of three months. The State can seek expeditious decision on the Bill through the courts provided the Governor is unable to furnish a sufficient explanation for his delay.
“Where the Governor reserves a Bill for the consideration of the President and the President in turn withholds assent thereto then, it shall be open to the State Government to assail such an action before the Supreme Court,” Justice Pardiwala held.
The apex court reminded constitutional authorities occupying high offices that they must be guided by the values of the Constitution.
Also read | Pending Bills: Following Tamil Nadu order, Karnataka too likely to approach Supreme Court
These values that are so cherished by the people of India are a result of years of struggle and sacrifice of our forefathers.
“When called upon to take decisions, such authorities must not give in to ephemeral political considerations but rather be guided by the spirit that underlies the Constitution,” Justice Pardiwala wrote.
If the authorities attempt to deliberately bypass the constitutional mandate, they are tinkering with the very ideals revered by its people upon which this country has been built, the apex court cautioned.
“We take this opportunity to quote Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s concluding speech in the Constituent Assembly, which is as relevant today as it was in 1949 – ‘However good a Constitution may be, it is sure to turn out bad because those who are called to work it, happen to be a bad lot. However bad a Constitution may be, it may turn out to be good if those who are called to work it, happen to be a good lot’,” Justice Pardiwala said.
Published – April 12, 2025 01:24 am IST
