In a major legal victory for the Tamil Nadu government under Chief Minister MK Stalin, the Supreme Court has declared Governor RN Ravi's decision to withhold assent on ten state Bills as "arbitrary" and "illegal". The court held that once a Bill is passed again by the legislature and re-submitted to the Governor, it must be approved without delay and cannot be reserved for the President's consideration.

Delivering the judgment, a bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan observed that the Governor failed to act in "good faith" and had no constitutional ground to reserve the Bills after withholding assent. "The act of reserving the ten Bills for the President is not only illegal but also arbitrary. Hence, all steps taken by the Governor in this matter stand annulled. These Bills will now be treated as approved from the date they were reintroduced to the Governor," the court said.

MK Stalin, president of the DMK and Tamil Nadu’s Chief Minister, hailed the ruling as "historic" and said it reaffirmed the rights of states in a federal system. “This is a victory not only for Tamil Nadu but for all Indian states. The DMK remains committed to upholding state autonomy and strengthening federal values,” he said in a statement.

The Supreme Court laid down a framework for how Governors must handle Bills under Article 200 of the Constitution. According to the judgment:

• Governors have one month to either give or withhold assent to a Bill or to reserve it for the President, based on the advice of the Council of Ministers.

• If the Governor chooses to reserve the Bill for the President without ministerial advice, the time limit extends to three months.

• Once a Bill is re-passed by the state legislature after reconsideration, the Governor must give assent within one month.

• Any delay or deviation from these timeframes will be subject to judicial review.

The bench was clear that the ruling does not diminish the constitutional role of the Governor but emphasized that all gubernatorial actions must uphold the democratic spirit and the rule of law. “The role of the Governor must remain within the bounds of parliamentary democracy,” the court said.

Since his appointment in 2021, RN Ravi's relationship with the DMK-led Tamil Nadu government has been tense. The Governor, a former IPS officer and ex-CBI official, has often been accused by the ruling party of behaving in a partisan manner and obstructing legislation and key government decisions.

Several controversies have marked his tenure, including his exit from the Assembly in protest when the national anthem was not played at the start of his address. While the Tamil Nadu tradition involves playing the Tamil state anthem at the beginning and the national anthem at the end, Governor Ravi insisted that the national anthem be played both times. In another instance, he refused to deliver the customary Governor’s speech in the Assembly, criticizing the content of the draft and refusing to read portions referring to leaders like BR Ambedkar, Periyar, CN Annadurai, and the Dravidian model.

This landmark judgment is likely to have broader implications on the role of Governors across Indian states, especially in cases where relations between the Raj Bhavan and elected governments are strained.