Did the Tamil Nadu Governor refer bills to the President to bypass giving assent, questions Supreme Court?

Supreme Court Questions Tamil Nadu Governor's Decision to Refer Bills to President

In a significant development that has reignited debates over gubernatorial powers in India's federal structure, the Supreme Court today sharply questioned Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi's practice of referring state bills to the President instead of taking constitutional action on them. The apex court's scrutiny came during hearings on a plea filed by the Tamil Nadu government, which accused the governor of creating an "unconstitutional deadlock" by withholding assent to at least 12 crucial bills passed by the state assembly, some pending for over a year.  

The bench, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, expressed serious concerns about whether the governor's actions amounted to bypassing his constitutional duties. "The governor cannot function as a super legislature over the elected government," the court observed, emphasizing that such delays undermine democratic processes. The remarks came as senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the state, argued that most of the stalled bills dealt with purely state subjects like education and local governance that required no presidential intervention.  

The governor's office defended its position by claiming some bills potentially conflicted with central laws or contained legal inconsistencies. However, constitutional experts point out that while Article 200 permits governors to reserve bills for presidential consideration in specific cases, this provision was never intended to become a routine alternative to granting assent or returning bills with recommendations.  

The case has become the latest flashpoint in growing tensions between opposition-ruled states and governors appointed by the central government, with similar disputes recently emerging in Kerala, Punjab and Telangana. Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin hailed the court's intervention as protecting states' rights, while political observers warn the outcome could redefine the boundaries of gubernatorial authority in India's democratic framework.  

With the Supreme Court demanding detailed responses from both the governor's office and central government, the proceedings are being closely watched as they may establish crucial precedents about how India balances state autonomy with constitutional oversight mechanisms. The next hearing promises to shed more light on whether governors can indefinitely delay legislation through referrals to the President, or if clearer timelines and accountability measures need to be instituted to preserve the spirit of cooperative federalism.