Tamil Nadu's Legal Challenge Puts Governor's Discretion Under SC Scrutiny

NEW DELHI – The constitutional friction between the Tamil Nadu government and its Governor, R.N. Ravi, has escalated to the nation's highest court, placing the contentious issue of gubernatorial discretion in the legislative process under a microscope. In a significant legal move on Saturday, October 4, 2025, the Tamil Nadu government filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenging Governor Ravi's decision to reserve the Kalaignar University Bill, 2025, for the consideration of President Droupadi Murmu. The state contends that this action circumvents the established constitutional procedure, where the Governor is expected to grant assent based on the "aid and advice" of the State Cabinet.

The petition, settled by Senior Advocate P. Wilson and filed through Advocate Misha Rohatgi Mohta, seeks a definitive judicial pronouncement on the limits of a Governor's powers under Article 200. The state has asked the Supreme Court to declare the Governor's decision as "illegal, patently unconstitutional, and void ab-initio," arguing it fundamentally violates the democratic will of the state legislature and the federal principles underpinning the Constitution.

The Legislative Impasse: At the Heart of the Dispute

The Kalaignar University Bill, 2025 [LA Bill No. 19 of 2025], was passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly in April 2025. The legislation aims to establish a new state university in Kumbakonam, named after the state's former Chief Minister and Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) patriarch, M. Karunanidhi, popularly known as "Kalaignar." The proposed university, to be formed by bifurcating Bharathidasan University, is intended to serve the higher education needs of students in the districts of Ariyalur, Nagapattinam, Thanjavur, and Tiruvarur.

According to the state government, the university's mission is to expand access to higher education while promoting Tamil language, culture, and social justice values. The Bill's provisions also reportedly envision the incumbent Chief Minister, M.K. Stalin, serving as the university's first Vice-Chancellor.

However, after being sent to the Raj Bhavan for assent, the Bill entered a state of limbo. On July 14, 2025, the Governor's office communicated its decision to reserve the Bill for the President's consideration, a move the state government decries as an arbitrary exercise of power. This is not an isolated incident; Governor Ravi has also reserved another piece of legislation—a Bill amending the Tamil Nadu Physical Education and Sports University Act to empower the state government in the appointment and removal of its Vice-Chancellor. The delay has already impacted administrative planning, with the state's Higher Education Minister, Govi Chezhiaan, having previously announced an intended launch for the 2025-26 academic year.

Core Constitutional Questions Before the Apex Court

The Tamil Nadu government's petition is anchored in the interpretation of Articles 163(1) and 200 of the Constitution. The state's primary legal contention is that the Governor, as a constitutional head, is bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. The petition asserts that the discretionary powers of the Governor are an exception, not the rule, and reserving a state university bill—which falls squarely within the State List of the Seventh Schedule—does not meet the criteria for such an exception.

The key prayers in the state's petition include: 1. A writ of declaration that the Governor's act of reserving the Bill for the President's consideration is unconstitutional. 2. A writ of certiorari to quash the Governor's communication of July 14, 2025, on the grounds that it is arbitrary and mala fide. 3. A writ of mandamus directing the President to return the Bill to the Governor, and a subsequent direction to the Governor to reconsider the Bill strictly in accordance with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers as mandated by Article 200.

In its plea, the government argues, "under the constitutional scheme, the Governor was bound to act on the aid and advice of the state Council of Ministers and that he had no independent discretion to reserve such a Bill, unless it fell within the specific exceptions mandated under the Constitution." This challenge directly confronts the ambiguity surrounding a Governor's authority to reserve bills that do not explicitly endanger the position of the High Court or appear to be in contravention of other constitutional provisions.

The Larger Context: A Pending Presidential Reference

This legal battle does not exist in a vacuum. It unfolds against the backdrop of a pending Presidential Reference before a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, which reserved its opinion on September 9, 2025. That reference, made by the President under Article 143, seeks the Court's opinion on crucial questions regarding the scope of a Governor's power to grant or withhold assent to bills.

The reference itself was a consequence of an April 8, 2025, Supreme Court judgment in a case also involving Tamil Nadu. In that ruling, the Court had set aside Governor Ravi’s decision to withhold assent for ten bills that were re-enacted by the state assembly, terming it "illegal and erroneous." Crucially, the bench had also imposed a general three-month deadline for Governors and the President to act on bills presented to them.

The pending reference examines, among other things, whether a Governor can act independently of cabinet advice in withholding assent or reserving bills for the President. The outcome of that reference is expected to provide much-needed clarity on the constitutional architecture governing state legislation. The current petition by the Tamil Nadu government concerning the Kalaignar University Bill will likely be viewed through the lens of the principles being deliberated upon by the larger bench.

Implications for Federalism and Constitutional Governance

The Supreme Court's handling of this petition will have profound implications for Centre-State relations and the functioning of parliamentary democracy at the state level. For years, opposition-ruled states have alleged that Governors, acting as appointees of the central government, have used their constitutional powers to stymie the legislative agendas of elected state governments.

A definitive ruling from the Supreme Court could either reinforce the principle that the Governor is a nominal head bound by cabinet advice or carve out a wider sphere of discretionary power. Legal experts will be closely watching whether the court reinforces the precedent set in landmark cases like Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab , which firmly established that the Governor acts on the aid and advice of the ministry.

The Court's decision will not only determine the fate of Kalaignar University but also set a crucial precedent for the constitutional boundaries that govern the relationship between the Raj Bhavan and the elected state legislature. It is a test case for the delicate federal balance envisioned by the Constitution, with the potential to either curb or condone the use of gubernatorial discretion as a political tool.