📢📢 Letest judgement State of Tamil Nadu vs.Governor of Tamil Nadu 🏛️🏛️Supreme Court ofIndia judgment

Описание: 📜 Case Background
The Tamil Nadu government filed a petition in the Supreme Court against the Governor of Tamil Nadu (R.N. Ravi).
The dispute arose because the Governor had withheld assent to several bills passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly and reserved them for the President’s consideration after long delays.
One key issue was whether a Governor can indefinitely withhold assent or reserve bills without acting within a reasonable time. �
NDTV India +1
⚖️ Supreme Court’s Key Findings (8 April 2025)
▶️ 1. Governor Cannot Withhold Bills Indefinitely
The Court held that the Governor does not have an unfettered or absolute veto power to sit on bills indefinitely.
Keeping bills pending without decision goes against the constitutional spirit of parliamentary democracy.
A Governor must act with due deference to the legislature and elected government. �
Wikipedia +1
▶️ 2. Withholding and Referral to President Was Held Illegal
The actions of the Governor in reserving multiple bills for the President’s assent, after keeping them pending, were declared illegal and arbitrary.
The court stressed the Governor’s duty is to act “in aid and advice” of the Council of Ministers and not become a roadblock to the legislated will of the people. �
State Mirror Hindi
▶️ 3. Role of Governor in a Parliamentary Democracy
The Court reiterated established constitutional principles:
The Governor must uphold the will of the elected legislature.
He should be a friend, philosopher and guide — not an inhibitor to governance.
Actions must be guided by constitutional oath and the will of the people. �
AajTak
▶️ 4. Timelines and Assent
The Court observed that undue delay in assent/decision-making must be avoided.
It suggested that Governors must act within a reasonable period, consistent with democratic governance.
The judgment also commented on the President’s role if bills are reserved, indicating time-bound decision-making is expected. �
NDTV India
🧾 What the Judgment Means
🔹 For State Legislatures
Laws passed by legislatures should not be stalled indefinitely by Governors.
An elected government’s mandate must be respected by constitutional authorities.
🔹 For Governors
They must act on ministerial advice unless there are clear constitutional reasons not to.
They cannot exercise independent veto power without valid constitutional basis.
🔹 For Federal Relations
The judgment strengthens democratic governance and clarifies the limits of discretionary powers of Governors.
📌 Subsequent Developments
Later in 2025, a larger bench of the Supreme Court clarified that timelines cannot be rigidly fixed for Governors or the President to give assent — emphasizing that constitutional authorities should exercise discretion responsibly, but not under arbitrary deadlines. �
The Economic Times
📘 Constitutional Provisions Discussed
Article 200 – Assent to bills by the Governor
Article 163 – Council of Ministers advising Governor
The Court emphasized parliamentary democracy principles and rule of law standards embedded in the Constitution based on these provisions.