UPSC CURRENT AFFAIRS – 09th April 2025

Home UPSC Current Affairs SC ruling on Tamil Nadu Governor

SC ruling on Tamil Nadu Governor

Why in News?

The Supreme Court invoked Article 142 to grant assent to 10 Tamil Nadu Bills, curbing the Governor’s delay and reinforcing limits on gubernatorial discretion.

Introduction

In a historic judgment, the Supreme Court of India exercised its exceptional powers under Article 142 to effectively give assent to ten Bills awaiting action by the Tamil Nadu Governor, R. N. Ravi.
This exceptional exercise of judicial power reflects the Court’s growing role in breaking constitutional logjams between the Executive and the Governor, and establishes important precedents in Centre-State relations and the interpretation of the Governor’s discretionary powers.

Background

Presidentially appointed Governors are the nominal heads of states according to Article 153 of the Constitution.
Though they are subject to the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers (Article 163), cases of withholding or delaying assent by Governors to Bills passed by State Legislatures have resulted in political and constitutional crises in recent times.
The Tamil Nadu case concerned ten Bills enacted by the State Legislature but left pending without assent by the Governor for long durations.
The Supreme Court, annoyed, assumed the constitutional role of the Governor and ordered that the Bills be taken to have received assent.
Originally, 12 Bills of Tamil Nadu, mostly dealing with appointments of Vice-Chancellors in state-run universities, were sent by the State Legislature for consent to the Governor between January 2020 and April 2023. The Governor sat on them indefinitely.
When the Tamil Nadu government approached the apex court in November 2023 against the Governor’s perceived inaction, the latter had quickly referred two of the Bills to the President and proceeded to withhold consent on the remaining 10.

Bills withheld by T.N. Governor, now assented by Supreme Court

Tamil Nadu Fisheries University (Amendment) Bill, 2020
Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University (Amendment) Bill, 2020
The Tamil Nadu Universities Laws (Amendment) Bill 2022
The Tamil Nadu Siddha Medical University Bill, 2022
The Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University, Chennai (Amendment) Bill, 2022
The Tamil Nadu Agricultural University (Amendment) Bill, 2022
The Tamil University (Second Amendment) Bill, 2022
The Tamil Nadu Universities Laws (Second Amendment) Bill, 2022
The Tamil Nadu Siddha Medical University Bill, 2022
The Tamil Nadu Fisheries University (Amendment) Bill, 2023
The Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University (Amendment) Bill, 2023

Significance of the Judgment

Invocation of Article 142
- Article 142 vests the Supreme Court with the authority to issue any order that will enable it to do “complete justice” in any case.
- The Court does not resort to this provision against other constitutional bodies very often. Its application in this case highlights the seriousness of the circumstances.
Setting a Time Limit for Governor’s Assent
- The Court, for the first time, set a one-month time limit for Governors to respond to Bills received from the State Legislature.
- This evolution captures judicial reluctance to impose similar timelines on Speakers in disqualification proceedings under the Tenth Schedule, but reflects a bold move in exercising constitutional accountability.
Impact on Other States
- The ruling will likely impact similar cases, such as an ongoing challenge pertaining to former Governor of Kerala Arif Mohammad Khan’s action to deny assent to several Bills.

Evolution of Judicial Approach on Governor's Powers

Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974)
- Held that the Governor has to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, with very little discretionary power.
Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006)
- Held that personal views of the Governor cannot legitimize imposition of President’s Rule.
Mercy Powers under Article 161
- In Epuru Sudhakar v. Government of A.P. (2006), the Court held that the pardoning powers of the Governor are subject to limited judicial review.
Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker (2016)
- Clarified that the summoning of the Assembly is not merely in the Governor’s discretion and has to be done on the advice of Cabinet.

Contemporary Constitutional Concerns

Refusal to Summon Assembly Sessions
- In 2023, the Punjab Government approached the Supreme Court against the Governor’s refusal to summon the Budget Session, representing increasing Executive-Governor tensions.
Granting Sanction for Prosecution
- The Karnataka case concerning Governor Thawar Chand Gehlot’s approval to prosecute CM Siddaramaiah raises constitutional issues regarding the Governor’s independent discretion.
Formation of Government
- In the 2017 Karnataka case, Governor Vajubhai Vala’s invitation to the single-largest party (BJP) instead of a post-poll alliance resulted in a legal challenge. Although the Court directed a floor test, the bigger constitutional issues are still pending.

Conclusion

The recent Supreme Court judgment is a landmark moment in Indian constitutional law.
It not only remaps the boundaries of the Governor’s function in a parliamentary system but also asserts federal principles by affirming the primacy of elected state legislatures.
With instances of constitutional confrontations between Raj Bhavans and elected state governments increasing, this judgment comes as a timely reminder of the boundaries of discretion and the necessity of accountability in a democratic