10 Bills That Drew Supreme Court’s Ire on TN Governor

In a significant victory for the DMK government, the Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that Governors cannot indefinitely delay or withhold assent to Bills once they have been passed or re-passed by a state Assembly. The verdict, delivered by a Bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, follows over a year of intense constitutional standoff between the DMK-led Tamil Nadu government and Governor R N Ravi, who had withheld assent on 10 crucial Bills, some pending since 2020.

The judgment effectively considers the 10 Bills to have received assent, asserting that any delay beyond a reasonable period is unconstitutional. The Court emphasized, “The Governor shall not withhold assent once a Bill is passed again by the Assembly,” while establishing specific timelines of one to three months for decisions on legislative matters, based on the circumstances.

The 10 Bills, covering changes to how state universities are run, tackling corruption, public appointments, and early release of prisoners, became the centre of what the Tamil Nadu government called a “constitutional deadlock.”  Chief Minister M. K. Stalin welcomed the verdict as a “ historic judgment,” saying it strongly supports the rights of states within India’s federal system. 

Bills on appointing vice-chancellors

The amendments in question bring significant changes to the appointment process of vice-chancellors in state universities. The Madras University (Amendment) Bill, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University (Amendment) Bill, and Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University (Amendment) Bill, among others, shift the authority of appointing vice-chancellors from the Governor, who customarily serves as the Chancellor of these institutions, to the state government.

Other bills passed between 2022 and 2023 include amendments to the MGR Medical University, Tamil University, Anna University, the Veterinary University Act, and a bill to establish a new Siddha Medical University near Chennai.

Bill passed by the former AIADMK government

In January 2020, the previous AIADMK government passed two Bills proposing structural changes in the Tamil Nadu Fisheries University and the Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University. The Bills aimed to grant the government powers of inspection and administrative oversight while also renaming the fisheries university after former Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa.

Delays in remission orders, TNPSC appointments

The petition, filed in the apex court in 2023, highlighted not only the 10 pending Bills but also delays in signing remission orders for over 50 prisoners, approving key appointments-, such as those to the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC), and granting consent to prosecute former ministers and MLAs accused of corruption.

A contentious issue was the delay in processing remission files for 38 prisoners, including 16 Muslim convicts, sparking political backlash. The opposition AIADMK accused the ruling DMK of selective action, while the government asserted that the files had been sent to the Governor but remained pending.

Proposals to fill TNPSC vacancies were also pending. The commission, which is required to have a Chairperson and 14 Members, was operating with only four Members, one of whom was serving as the acting Chairperson. The petition alleged that the Governor raised "dubious queries" to stall the appointment process, despite receiving necessary clarifications and supporting regulations.

Governments’ response to delays and appointments

Together, these Bills subtly but significantly contested the Governor’s longstanding authority over public universities, one of the last domains where Governors, despite their largely ceremonial role under the Constitution, continue to wield considerable influence.

Although the Assembly passed these Bills following due legislative procedures, Governor Ravi neither signed nor formally rejected them. The state government accused him of stalling the legislation and interfering with the democratic process. In October 2023, Tamil Nadu filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court, alleging “inaction, omission, delay, and failure” on the Governor’s part, which led to a breakdown in administrative operations.

The petition alleged that the Governor’s refusal to act was not merely a delay but a “malafide exercise of power” aimed at obstructing legislation that sought to curtail his role in state governance. The confrontation escalated in November 2023 when, just days after the Supreme Court raised “serious concern” over Raj Bhavan inaction in multiple states, Governor Ravi returned all 10 Bills to the Assembly. While this move ended the deadlock, it was criticized as reactive and constitutionally inadequate.

The Tamil Nadu Assembly convened a Special Session on November 18, 2023, under Rule 26, to re-pass the Bills that had been returned. Speaker M. Appavu stated that the re-passed Bills would now require the Governor’s assent as per constitutional protocol. He also clarified that the session would strictly focus on legislative procedures and would not entertain discussions on the judiciary, the Governor, or the President.

Guardrails set on Governor’s Powers

The Supreme Court's verdict on Tuesday imposes strict limitations on the Governor's discretion. It ruled that under Article 200 of the Constitution, the Governor must act with urgency and cannot indefinitely withhold a Bill using a "pocket veto." If a Bill is returned and re-passed by the Assembly without amendments, the Governor is obligated to grant assent.

Senior Advocate P. Wilson, representing the Tamil Nadu government, hailed the ruling as a “huge win for the DMK government.” He asserted, “Any subsequent action by the President on a wrongly reserved Bill is void. The Governor does not have an absolute veto. Article 200 must be interpreted alongside Article 163, which mandates the Governor to act on the Cabinet’s advice.”

The Court's ruling also specifies that if a Governor withholds assent or reserves a Bill against Cabinet advice, it must be done within three months. For re-passed Bills, the timeframe is shortened to one month.

Shortly after the verdict in the state Assembly, CM Stalin portrayed the ruling as a significant ideological triumph. “This Supreme Court order is not just for Tamil Nadu,” he declared. “It marks a major victory for all states in India. The struggle, rooted in Dravidian political principles advocating state autonomy and federalism, will persist — and Tamil Nadu will emerge victorious.”

Tamil Nadu's case is among several recent legal disputes between state governments and their Governors. Kerala, Punjab, and Telangana have also moved the Supreme Court, alleging similar delays and interference by Centre-appointed Governors.