The Supreme Court of India has drawn a bold and necessary line in the sand that is sure to have an impact on governance at a fractious time in Indian politics. In a landmark judgment, the Apex Court declared Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi’s delay and subsequent withholding of assent to 10 re-passed bills as “erroneous in law and non-est”. In effect, the court has reasserted the foundational principle that no constitutional authority, however high, is above accountability to the rule of law.
The judgment, delivered by Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, not only sets aside the Governor’s actions but also nullifies the consequential steps taken by President Droupadi Murmu, who had withheld assent to the same bills. Exercising its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the court has deemed these 10 bills as having received assent as of November 18, 2023 – the date they were re-submitted to the Governor after being passed for a second time by the Tamil Nadu legislature.
This decision is as historic as it is unprecedented. For the first time, the Supreme Court has explicitly imposed a three-month time frame for the President to act on bills referred by Governors under Article 201. Equally significant is the court’s affirmation that such actions by the President are justiciable – subject to judicial review – a necessary evolution in ensuring that the constitutional process is not subverted by political motivations or inertia.
At its core, this case underscores a long-festering constitutional dilemma – the misuse or non-use of gubernatorial powers in a federal structure. Governors, intended as impartial constitutional functionaries, have increasingly become flashpoints in Centre-State relations, often accused of stalling the legislative agenda of Opposition-ruled states. The Tamil Nadu Governor’s extended silence and eventual reservation of bills to the President, without cogent constitutional reasons, is an example of this trend.
The court’s judgment sends a clear message: constitutional offices must operate within the bounds of reason, transparency, and accountability. The absence of a statutory time limit in Articles 200 and 201 does not translate into unchecked discretion. As the judgment wisely observes, “even where no time-limit is prescribed for the exercise of any power under a statute, it should be exercised within a reasonable time.” Reasonable governance is, after all, a cornerstone of any constitutional democracy.
Further, the court decisively rules out the idea that the Governor or President can use political expediency or personal dissatisfaction as grounds to withhold or delay assent. Such decisions, the court emphasised, must rest solely on clearly defined constitutional grounds—such as peril to democratic principles—with properly recorded and communicated reasons. The idea that high constitutional functionaries can act as political gatekeepers has been rejected firmly, and rightly so.
The implications of this ruling are wide-ranging. First, it fortifies the principle of cooperative federalism. No state should be held hostage to partisan calculations emanating from the Centre. When Governors or Presidents reserve bills indefinitely or act arbitrarily, they erode the authority of elected legislatures and thereby diminish the will of the people. By holding these actions accountable to judicial scrutiny, the Supreme Court restores a sense of balance and respect between the Union and State governments.
Second, this judgment marks a strong assertion of judicial oversight. The ruling reiterates that questions of constitutionality must be dealt with by the courts, and not the executive. If a bill is suspected of violating the Constitution, the appropriate course is to refer it to the Supreme Court under Article 143, not to indefinitely delay its passage under the pretext of procedural discretion.
Third, it reaffirms the idea of limited government, emphasising that the executive cannot act with impunity. If a Governor or the President withholds assent without offering constitutionally sound and recorded justifications, their actions are not immune from challenge. The court’s invocation of Dr BR Ambedkar’s warning – that even a good Constitution can be subverted by bad actors – is a poignant reminder of the vigilance required to protect democratic institutions.
Critics, including the Centre, are reportedly preparing to file a review petition, citing that the President’s views were not represented in the case. Some claim the ruling amounts to judicial overreach, especially the court’s use of Article 142 to deem bills as assented without formal signatures. However, such extraordinary measures were necessitated by extraordinary delay and obstruction. Constitutional silence cannot be interpreted as a licence to stall governance.
This judgment is a reminder that the Constitution is not a mere document to be selectively interpreted, but a living charter of accountability, duty, and democratic faith. In doing so, the Supreme Court has once again positioned itself as the final bulwark against arbitrary power – and as a guardian of India’s constitutional soul.