The controversy began when Governor Ravi delayed action on several bills passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly between 2020 and 2023. This inaction prompted the state government to petition the Supreme Court, alleging that the Governor's delays were hindering governance and creating a constitutional impasse. The court expressed concern over the Governor's prolonged inaction, questioning the rationale behind withholding assent without timely communication.
In November 2023, following the Supreme Court's notice, Governor Ravi returned ten bills to the Assembly without assent. The Tamil Nadu Assembly subsequently re-adopted these bills and re-submitted them for the Governor's approval. However, instead of granting assent, the Governor reserved the bills for the President's consideration, further prolonging the legislative process.
Legal experts have criticized the Governor's approach, citing Article 200 of the Constitution, which outlines the Governor's role in the legislative process. According to this provision, once a bill is re-passed by the Assembly after being returned, the Governor is constitutionally obligated to grant assent and cannot withhold it or reserve it for the President's consideration. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal emphasized that the Governor's refusal to act on the re-enacted bills was constitutionally inappropriate and undermined the legislative authority of the elected government.
The Supreme Court's ruling reaffirms the constitutional boundaries of the Governor's authority, emphasizing that the gubernatorial role is not to obstruct the legislative process but to act within the framework set by the Constitution. The court's decision is seen as a significant affirmation of the principles of democratic governance and the separation of powers, ensuring that elected legislative bodies can function without undue interference from appointed officials.