LiveLaw reported that a bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan held that Ravi “did not act with bona fides” as the bills were sent to the President after he had had sat on them for a long time and only after the Supreme Court gave its judgement in the Punjab governor’s case, noting that governors cannot veto legislation in this manner.
The judges observed that any subsequent steps taken on these laws by the President, too, do not survive. https://thewire.in/law/supreme-court-tamil-nadu-governor-rn-ravi-10-bills
“We are in no way undermining the office of the government. All we say is that the governor must act with due deference to the settled conventions of parliamentary democracy, respecting the will of the people being expressed through the legislature as well as the elected government responsible to the people,” the SC bench said.
08/04/2025
Supreme Court Ruling on Tamil Nadu Governor a Win For Other States Too. Here's Why
In a significant move, the court also laid down a timeline for governors to decide on bills presented to them. The court said that in case a governor decides to withhold assent or reserve a bill for presidential consideration “upon the aid and advice of the state’s council of ministers”, he must act within one month of the bill being sent to him.
On the contrary, where such decisions go against the advice of the state government, the governor should return the bill with a message or reserve it for consideration of the President in a maximum period of three months, the bench noted.
With the latest judgment, the Supreme Court has reiterated its message that governors cannot act as gatekeepers to override or stall a democratically passed legislation.
09/04/2025