Tamil Nadu Government Supreme Court of India has stepped in to address the escalating tensions between the Governor of Tamil Nadu and the State Government, asserting that the dispute will be resolved in the “spirit of the Constitution.” The confrontation, which has been building for months, revolves around allegations that Governor R.N. Ravi has been deliberately delaying key government bills, refusing to act on cabinet recommendations, and overstepping his constitutional authority.
Appearing for the Governor’s office, Attorney General R. Venkataramani argued that the Governor’s table is “empty”, implying that there has been no deliberate delay in clearing pending bills and other state matters. However, the Tamil Nadu government, led by Chief Minister M.K. Stalin, has strongly contested this claim, calling the Governor’s actions “ex-facie illegal, Tamil Nadu Government without jurisdiction, and in gross violation of the Constitution.”
As the matter reaches the highest court, it raises crucial questions about the role of the Governor in a federal democracy, the autonomy of elected state governments, and the broader implications for Centre-State relations in India.
Background: The Governor-State Government Standoff
1. The Role of the Governor in India
The Governor serves as the constitutional head of the state, appointed by the President of India on the recommendation of the Central Government. While the Governor’s role is largely ceremonial, they have certain discretionary powers, Tamil Nadu Government including:
- Giving or withholding assent to bills passed by the state legislature.
- Summoning, proroguing, or dissolving the State Assembly.
- Sending reports to the President regarding the state’s governance.
- Appointing the Chief Minister when there is no clear majority.
However, Article 163 of the Constitution makes it clear that the Governor must act on the aid and advice of the elected government, except in matters where discretion is explicitly grante . 
For the more information click on this link
2. Why is Tamil Nadu in Conflict with the Governor?
The conflict between Governor R.N. Ravi and the DMK-led Tamil Nadu government has intensified over multiple issues, including:
- Withholding assent to crucial state government bills.
- Delaying approval of government-appointed Vice Chancellors in state universities.
- Making politically charged statements about Tamil Nadu’s governance and history.
- Suggesting that “Tamizhagam” (instead of Tamil Nadu) would be a more appropriate name for the state.
The Tamil Nadu government has accused the Governor of acting as an “agent of the Centre” rather than a neutral constitutional authority, alleging that his actions are aimed at deliberately obstructing the state government’s functioning.
Legal Battle Reaches Supreme Court
1. Tamil Nadu’s Argument: Governor’s Actions Are Unconstitutional
The Tamil Nadu government has petitioned the Supreme Court, arguing that Governor Ravi’s conduct is:
- “Unprecedented and undemocratic,” as he has failed to act on several key bills passed by the state legislature.
- A violation of constitutional principles, particularly those enshrined in Articles 163 and 200 of the Indian Constitution.
- A political move to weaken the elected Tamil Nadu Government creating a parallel power structure outside democratic norms.
The state has urged the Supreme Court to intervene and direct the Governor to fulfill his constitutional obligations without bias or delay.
2. The Governor’s Defense: No Intentional Delay
Representing the Governor’s office, Attorney General R. Venkataramani has rejected Tamil Nadu’s accusations. He has argued that:
- The Governor’s table is “empty,” meaning no bill is pending indefinitely.
- The Governor is within his rights to take time to assess and review bills before granting assent.
- There is no political motive behind his actions, and he has only been acting within the constitutional framework.
However, this defense has been met with skepticism, as multiple reports indicate that several bills have been pending for months, leading to administrative paralysis in the state.
Key Constitutional Issues at Stake
The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case will have far-reaching consequences for the relationship between Governors and state governments across India. Some of the key legal and constitutional questions include:
1. Can a Governor Withhold Assent Indefinitely?
Article 200 of the Indian Constitution states that the Governor must act on a bill within a reasonable time. The Governor has three options:
- Grant assent to the bill.
- Withhold assent and return it to the Assembly with suggestions.
- Refer the bill to the President if it conflicts with national laws or constitutional provisions.
However, there is no provision allowing the Governor to sit on bills indefinitely, Tamil Nadu Government leading to concerns that such delays amount to an abuse of power.
2. Limits of the Governor’s Discretionary Powers
While Article 163 allows the Governor to use discretion in specific circumstances, it is generally accepted that the Governor must act on the advice of the elected Chief Minister and Cabinet. The Supreme Court’s ruling will clarify whether Governors can independently delay or block legislative decisions without justification.
3. Federalism and Centre-State Relations
The case also brings up larger issues of federalism in India. Tamil Nadu’s government argues that Governor Ravi is acting as an extended arm of the Central Tamil Nadu Government , undermining the principles of democratic governance. A ruling in favor of the Tamil Nadu government could set a precedent limiting the Central Government’s ability to control states through Governors.
Political Reactions to the Crisis
1. DMK and Opposition Parties
Tamil Nadu’s ruling party, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), has been vocal in its opposition to Governor Ravi’s actions. Chief Minister M.K. Stalin has called his behavior “unconstitutional” and “deliberate obstructionism”.
Other regional parties, including TMC, BRS, AAP, and Shiv Sena (UBT), have backed Tamil Nadu’s stance, arguing that Governors in non-BJP states are systematically trying to weaken elected governments.
2. BJP’s Stand
The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which governs at the Centre, has defended Governor Ravi, Tamil Nadu Government stating that he is simply exercising his constitutional responsibility to review legislative matters carefully. BJP leaders have accused the DMK of trying to stir up anti-Centre sentiment for political gain.
3. Legal Experts’ Views
Many legal scholars and constitutional experts believe that the Governor’s role should remain limited to a ceremonial one, except in extraordinary situations. Senior advocates have argued that the Supreme Court should set clear guidelines to prevent the misuse of gubernatorial powers. 
For the more information click on this link
Possible Outcomes of the Supreme Court Case
The Supreme Court has promised to resolve the matter in the “spirit of the Constitution”, but its final ruling could take several directions:
1. Court Orders Governor to Act on Bills
The Supreme Court could rule that Governor Ravi must clear all pending bills immediately, Tamil Nadu Government reinforcing the principle that a Governor cannot indefinitely delay the legislative process.
2. Establishing Time Limits for Governors
The Court may introduce a specific time frame (e.g., 30-60 days) within which Governors must act on state bills, preventing unnecessary delays in the future.
3. Strengthening Federalism Protections
The verdict may include stronger legal protections for state Tamil Nadu Government , limiting the Governor’s ability to interfere in routine administrative matters.
4. Governor’s Discretion Upheld in Certain Cases
If the Supreme Court rules in favor of greater discretion for Governors, it could set a precedent allowing Governors to exercise independent judgment in state matters, Tamil Nadu Government potentially expanding their influence.
Conclusion
The ongoing conflict between Governor R.N. Ravi and the Tamil Nadu government is more than just a state-level dispute; it is a test case for the balance of power in India’s federal system. The Supreme Court’s intervention will determine whether Governors can function as neutral constitutional authorities or whether they are being used as political tools by the Central Government.
With tensions running high and both sides unwilling to back down, the Court’s ruling will have long-lasting consequences for the Governor’s role, Centre-State relations, and the autonomy of elected state governments. Whether this verdict strengthens democracy or expands executive interference remains to be seen, but its impact will be felt far beyond Tamil Nadu. ALSO READ:-ICC Prosecutor Sees ‘No Real Effort’ by Israel to Probe Alleged Gaza War Crimes 2025