Supreme Court Rebukes Governors for Obstructing Elected State Governments, Terms Tamil Nadu Governor’s Actions ‘Illegal’

New Delhi, April 9 — In a significant verdict aimed at curbing the escalating tensions between centrally appointed Governors and Opposition-ruled state governments, the Supreme Court on Tuesday strongly reminded Governors of their constitutional duties, cautioning them against obstructing the functioning of democratically elected legislatures for political reasons.

The judgment, delivered by a Bench led by Justice J.B. Pardiwala, came in response to the long-standing dispute between Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi and the state government over his refusal to give assent to several bills passed by the state assembly. The court held that the Governor’s decision to withhold assent for 10 bills—some pending since January 2020—and then referring them to the President even after re-enactment by the assembly was “illegal and erroneous.”

In a stern message, the apex court asserted that Governors must act in accordance with their constitutional obligations and not as political agents. “The Governor must be conscious not to create roadblocks or chokehold the state legislature to thwart and break the will of the people for political [reasons],” the court observed.

Highlighting that the members of a state legislature are elected as an expression of the people’s will, the Bench emphasized that Governors should work as a “friend, philosopher, and guide,” steering clear of partisan interests.

The judgment laid down a strict timeline: any decision to withhold assent or refer a bill to the President must be made within one month, and if such action goes against the advice of the state government, the decision must be taken within a maximum of three months.

Reaffirming the sanctity of the Constitution, the court warned constitutional authorities against undermining democratic values for political gain. “Authorities must not give in to political considerations but rather be guided by the spirit that underlies the Constitution,” the judgment noted.

The court concluded by reiterating that a Governor must be a “catalyst and not an inhibitor,” ensuring smooth governance by promoting consensus and not conflict.

The verdict is expected to set a strong precedent, especially at a time when several Opposition-ruled states have been raising concerns about Governors allegedly stalling key legislative and administrative actions.