What did the SC rule on T.N. Governor?

• The Supreme Court declared Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi’s prolonged refusal to give his assent to 10 Bills as illegal and erroneous in law.

• The ruling, authored by Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, underscored the importance of cooperative federalism amid concerns over the politicisation of the Governor’s office in Opposition-ruled States.

• Article 200 of the Constitution outlines the powers conferred upon a Governor when a Bill is presented for assent.

• The Governor can exercise one of four options: grant assent, withhold assent, return the Bill to the Assembly for reconsideration, or reserve it for the President’s consideration.

• The court ruled that a Bill cannot be reserved for the President’s consideration once it has been returned to the State legislature, reconsidered, and resubmitted for assent.

• The court set a three-month deadline for the President to decide whether to assent to Bills referred by the Governor.

• The court has imposed similar timelines on the Governor to prevent any obstruction of the State’s legislative process.

• The court deemed the 10 pending Bills to have received assent, invoking its inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.

• The ruling upholds the principles of federalism and provides Opposition-ruled State governments a clear constitutional remedy against inordinate delays by Governors in granting assent to Bills passed by the legislature.