In a major constitutional development, ten bills passed by the Tamil Nadu Assembly since 2020 have now become law, despite the fact that neither the Governor nor the President gave their formal assent. This historic shift comes in the wake of a recent Supreme Court verdict that strongly criticized the Governor’s prolonged inaction and declared the withholding of assent as unconstitutional.
Governor’s actions termed arbitrary and illegal
The apex court, responding to a petition by the Tamil Nadu government, struck down Governor RN Ravi’s decision to reserve ten key bills for the President after previously withholding assent. The two-judge bench, comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, stated that the Governor’s move was both “illegal” and “arbitrary.” The Court clarified that once a bill is re-submitted by the Assembly, the Governor cannot withhold it again or forward it to the President without adequate justification.
“These bills shall be deemed to be cleared from the date they were re-presented to the Governor,” the bench declared. As a result, all the ten bills automatically attained legal status on November 18, 2023—the day the Tamil Nadu government issued gazette notifications confirming their enactment.
Impact on university governance and state authority
One of the most notable consequences of this verdict is the change in how Vice Chancellors of state-run universities are appointed. Among the ten bills is legislation that shifts the power of appointing Vice Chancellors from the Governor to the state government, significantly diminishing the Governor’s role in academic administration.
Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin praised the Supreme Court’s judgment, calling it “historic” and a reaffirmation of democratic processes. He also took to social media platform X to assert that “DMK means history,” emphasizing his party’s commitment to preserving legislative autonomy.
The DMK has been engaged in an ongoing conflict with Governor Ravi over various governance issues. Senior advocate and DMK Rajya Sabha MP P Wilson noted that the implementation of these bills would now allow the state’s nominee to take over as Chancellor of state universities, replacing the Governor.
The Supreme Court also questioned the Governor’s delay, highlighting that some bills had been pending since January 2020. The bench criticized the lack of communication from the Governor’s office and observed that such inaction undermines the constitutional responsibilities of the gubernatorial post.
