Governor ‘Seems to Have Adopted His Own Procedure,’ Court Remarks

February 7, 2025

The Tamil Nadu government told the Supreme Court that Governor R.N. Ravi behaved like a political opponent by withholding assent on multiple bills, arguing that his actions blocked duly passed legislation and undermined the authority of the state assembly. The court questioned the Governor’s decision to keep some bills pending for three years before declaring his intention to withhold assent and refer them to the President.

“What is something so gross in the bills which the governor took 3 years to find?” Justice J.B. Pardiwala asked  the attorney general R. Venkataramani on Feb. 6, as quoted by The Wire. “The Governor had an option in the first instance to refer all 12 Bills to the President. But in his discretion, he thought it fit to refer 2 out of 12 and for the remaining 10, he said I withhold. What next? … He seems to have adopted his own procedure.”

In November 2023, the Governor announced he would withhold assent on 10 bills passed by the assembly. Days later, the assembly reconvened and re-enacted the same bills. The Governor sent all 10 to the President for consideration. The President gave assent to one, rejected seven and did not address two.

The state government, represented by senior advocates Rakesh Dwivedi, Mukul Rohatgi, A.M. Singhvi and P. Wilson, said the Governor’s conduct amounted to taking on a political adversarial role, obstructing legislation that was duly passed by elected representatives.

The Supreme Court remarked that withholding assent without returning the bills “frustrates” the second part of Article 200 of the Constitution, which grants the Governor the authority to decide on bills passed by a state’s legislature. The Governor can either approve the bill and give assent, withhold assent and reject it, or reserve it for the President’s consideration if required. If the bill is not a Money Bill, the Governor can return it to the legislature with suggested changes. The legislature can then reconsider, make modifications if necessary, and pass it again. Once the bill is sent back to the Governor after being reapproved by the legislature, the Governor must give assent and cannot withhold it.

The bench insisted on material showing how the Governor assessed the legislation, questioning the absence of any direct communication to the state assembly about possible concerns.

The court told the AG that further explanations were necessary to show “factually what weighed in with the governor in arriving at the decision.”

The Constitution requires a Governor to remain apolitical by defining the role as a constitutional authority rather than a political figure. The Governor is appointed by the President and serves as the head of a state in a ceremonial and administrative capacity, acting on the advice of the elected government.

Article 154 vests executive power in the Governor, but this power is exercised according to the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, as stated in Article 163. The Governor does not have independent decision-making authority in most cases and must function within the constitutional framework rather than as a representative of any political ideology.

The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that a Governor cannot act on personal discretion except in situations specifically provided for in the Constitution.

In Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974) and Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker (2016), the Court reaffirmed that the Governor must act as a neutral constitutional head and not as an agent of the central government or a political entity.

The Governor is expected to uphold federalism by facilitating governance rather than obstructing state legislatures.