In a landmark development, the Supreme Court of India has redefined the dynamics of federal governance by setting a three-month deadline for the President to decide on state bills reserved by Governors. This decision emerged from a protracted legal battle between the Tamil Nadu government and its Governor, R.N. Ravi, over the withholding of assent to ten bills passed by the state legislature.
Background: The Legislative Impasse
Between 2020 and 2023, the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly passed several bills aimed at reforming university governance and other state matters. Governor R.N. Ravi withheld assent to ten of these bills and reserved two for the President’s consideration. In response, the Assembly re-passed the ten bills, asserting its legislative authority. However, the Governor neither assented to nor forwarded these re-passed bills, leading the state government to seek judicial intervention.
Supreme Court’s Verdict: Upholding Legislative Supremacy
On April 8, 2025, the Supreme Court delivered a decisive judgment in the case of *State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu*. The Court held that under Article 200 of the Constitution, a Governor must act on the advice of the Council of Ministers and cannot exercise an absolute or pocket veto over state legislation. Specifically, if a bill is re-passed by the legislature after being returned by the Governor, the Governor is constitutionally obligated to grant assent. The Court deemed the Governor’s inaction as “erroneous and illegal,” emphasizing that such delays undermine the democratic process.
Mandating Timely Presidential Decisions
Addressing the issue of bills reserved for the President under Article 201, the Supreme Court established that the President must decide on such bills within three months. This directive aims to prevent indefinite delays that can stall state legislation. The Court clarified that while the President is not bound to assent to re-passed bills, any decision to withhold assent must be based on sound and specific grounds, not done arbitrarily .
Tamil Nadu’s Historic Move
Following the Supreme Court’s ruling, the Tamil Nadu government promptly notified the ten previously stalled bills, effectively enacting them without the Governor’s or President’s assent. This unprecedented move marks a significant assertion of state legislative power and sets a precedent in India’s constitutional history.
Implications for Federal Governance
The Supreme Court’s judgment reinforces the principles of cooperative federalism by delineating clear boundaries for gubernatorial and presidential roles in state legislation. By imposing time constraints and emphasizing accountability, the Court has ensured that the democratic will of state legislatures is not thwarted by procedural delays. This decision is poised to influence the legislative processes across Indian states, promoting efficiency and respect for constitutional mandates.
In conclusion, Tamil Nadu’s legislative assertiveness, backed by the Supreme Court’s decisive intervention, underscores the evolving nature of India’s federal structure. This development not only empowers state legislatures but also fortifies the democratic fabric of the nation.
Sources
- https://www.deccanherald.com/india/within-3-months-in-a-first-supreme-court-sets-timeline-for-presidents-decision-on-bills-reserved-for-consideration-by-governor-3491134
- https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/tamil-nadu/2025/Apr/12/tamil-nadu-enacts-10-bills-stalled-by-governor-after-sc-ruling?utm_
- https://www.livemint.com/news/president-do-not-have-supreme-court-allows-judicial-review-of-president-governors-nod-on-state-bills-11744533417889.html?utm_
More Current Affairs: https://learnproacademy.in/updates/