Tamil Nadu Sets Constitutional Precedent by Operationalising Laws Without Governor’s Assent
In a landmark development in India’s constitutional and federal history, the Tamil Nadu government has officially notified ten State Bills as Acts without the formal assent of the Governor or the President. This bold step was taken following a Supreme Court judgment that declared the Bills to have received “deemed assent” under Article 142 of the Constitution.
This is the first instance in Indian legislative history where a State has brought laws into force purely on the basis of a Supreme Court judgment, bypassing the traditional requirement of gubernatorial or presidential approval.
Background: Governor Withholds Assent
The controversy began when Governor RN Ravi delayed or withheld assent to several Bills passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly between 2020 and 2023. These Bills primarily sought to reform governance structures in State universities, notably by replacing the Governor as Chancellor of various institutions, including the Tamil Nadu Dr Ambedkar Law University, the MGR Medical University, and the Tamil Nadu Fisheries University.
Under Article 200 of the Indian Constitution, the Governor has the power to either assent to a Bill, withhold assent, return it for reconsideration, or reserve it for the President. However, there is no specified timeline for these actions, a loophole which has often been misused to delay the legislative process.
Re-enactment and Supreme Court Intervention
After the Governor initially withheld or delayed assent, the Tamil Nadu Assembly re-enacted the Bills and re-submitted them for gubernatorial approval in November 2023. However, rather than acting on them, the Governor referred the Bills to the President, a move the State government challenged in the Supreme Court.
On April 8, 2025, the apex court, in a judgment delivered by a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, ruled in favor of the Tamil Nadu government. The Court stated that once the Governor had returned the Bills and the legislature had re-passed them, the Governor was **constitutionally bound to assent. Referring them to the President afterward was declared *unconstitutional and non-est in law.
“All actions of the Hon’ble President after date of reserving the above said Bill is non-est in law and shall be deemed to have been assented to by the Hon’ble Governor,” noted the Tamil Nadu government in its official gazette notification dated April 13, 2025.
Article 142: The Supreme Court’s Extraordinary Powers
The Court invoked Article 142, which allows it to pass any order necessary to do “complete justice” in any case. By using this extraordinary constitutional power, the Court declared that the ten re-enacted Bills were deemed to have received assent on November 18, 2023, the date they were re-submitted to the Governor.
This judicial assertion was a strong rebuke to the Governor’s inaction, with the Court noting the “scant respect shown by the Governor to the decision of this Court” and calling out “extraneous considerations” in the discharge of his constitutional duties.
Legal and Federal Significance
This development marks a turning point in Indian federalism, where a State legislature has effectively asserted its autonomy in the face of gubernatorial obstruction. The Governor’s discretionary powers have long been a contentious issue, especially in Opposition-ruled States. Tamil Nadu’s move, backed by the Supreme Court, provides a judicially-sanctioned path to override such constitutional deadlocks.
Senior Advocate and DMK MP P Wilson, writing on X (formerly Twitter), hailed the move:
“History is made as these are the first Acts of any legislature in India to have taken effect without the signature of the Governor / President but on the strength of the judgment of the Supreme Court.”
Which Laws Were Notified?
The ten Bills notified into law were originally passed between 2020 and 2023. While one dates back to 2020, the others were passed during the 2022–2023 period. Key areas covered include:
- University governance reforms
- Replacement of the Governor as Chancellor
- Decentralization of higher education administration
- Structural and functional reforms in key institutions
These Acts represent Tamil Nadu’s push for autonomy in shaping its educational policy, which had been hindered by delays in gubernatorial assent.
Broader Implications for India
This case may become a reference point for other States facing similar hurdles with their Governors. Several non-BJP ruled States, including Kerala, Telangana, and West Bengal, have expressed concerns over gubernatorial delays in legislative matters.
The Supreme Court’s judgment reaffirms the spirit of parliamentary supremacy at the State level, emphasizing that the Governor is a constitutional functionary, not an autonomous authority.
Moreover, this ruling may lead to constitutional reforms or judicial clarifications in the future regarding the time frame within which Governors must act on Bills, thereby preventing indefinite delays.
Conclusion
The Tamil Nadu government’s decision to notify ten re-enacted Bills based on the Supreme Court’s “deemed assent” ruling is a watershed moment in Indian constitutional history. It asserts the sovereignty of elected legislatures, redefines the limits of gubernatorial power, and reinforces the Supreme Court’s role as the final arbiter of constitutional disputes.
This development sets a new federal precedent, paving the way for more assertive governance by State Assemblies while also upholding constitutional balance and judicial oversight.
As debates around the role of Governors continue to intensify, this case may well be the catalyst for a long-overdue re-evaluation of Centre-State relations in India’s federal democracy.
