SC holds Tamil Nadu Governor’s reservation of 10 bills for President’s assent is illegal

Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi.
| Photo Credit: Special Arrangement

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (April 8, 2025) held that Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi’s reservation of 10 bills for President’s assent is “illegal and liable to be set aside”.

A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan pronounced the verdict. Attorney General R. Venkataramani argued for the Union of India. Senior advocates AM Singhvi, Rakesh Dwivedi, P. Wilson and advocate Sabarish Subramanian appeared for the State of Tamil Nadu. 

“Governor did not act bona fide, the bills were deemed to have been assented to by the Governor on the date when they were re-presented,” observed Justice Pardiwala.

“The reservation of the 10 Bills by the Governor and reference to the President on November 28, 2023, even after reconsideration by the State Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu, is contrary to Article 200 of the Constitution. The Governor’s action was non est and erroneous in law. Consequently, the action taken by the President on the 10 Bills is also non est,” the order read.

In Tamil Nadu’s case, originally 12 Bills, mostly dealing with appointments of Vice-Chancellors in State universities, were sent by the State Legislature for consent to the Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution between January 2020 and April 2023. The Governor had sat on them indefinitely. Ultimately, when the State approached the top court against the Governor’s perceived inaction in November 2023, the latter had quickly referred two of the Bills to the President and proceeded to withhold consent on the remaining 10.

States v. Governors: Delay in assenting to Bills | Explained

The State Assembly had re-passed the 10 Bills in a Special Session within days, and had sent them to the Governor again for assent. The State argued in the apex court that it was following procedure under the first proviso of Article 200. The Governor had proceeded to refer all 10 Bills to the President for consideration. The President had subsequently assented to one Bill, rejected seven and not considered the remaining two proposed laws.

Due to the reasons of long period of time taken by the Governor and “scant respect” shown to the past judgments of the Supreme Court, the Bench invoked its inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to declare that 10 Bills have been deemed to have been assented to.