‘Huge victory for all states’: Stalin hails Supreme Court decision on Tamil Nadu Governor’s reservation of 10 Bills

The Supreme Court, in a case filed by the Tamil Nadu government against Governor R N Ravi’s repeated delays and refusals to assent to state legislation, set clear limits on gubernatorial discretion. The Bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan ruled that Governors are constitutionally bound to act “expeditiously” on Bills and cannot withhold assent or reserve Bills for the President’s consideration after sending them back once.

Senior advocate P Wilson, who represented Tamil Nadu, termed the ruling “a huge win for the DMK government against the TN Governor.” He explained: “Article 200 requires the Governor to act within a timeline. There is no pocket veto or absolute veto. When a Bill is presented to the Governor, he is under obligation to pick one of three options.”

The court laid down specific time frames: one month to act in cases of initial withholding of assent; three months when doing so contrary to Cabinet advice or reserving it for presidential consideration; and one month when a Bill is again presented by the Assembly. “When Bills are re-presented, the Governor has a mandate to grant assent. The only exception is when the Bill is materially changed,” Wilson said after the verdict.

Attorney General R Venkataramani appeared for the Union government, which maintained the Governor’s conduct was within constitutional bounds.

“The fight for state autonomy and federalism will continue,” Stalin said in the Assembly, “and Tamil Nadu will win.”