In a powerful reaffirmation of democratic principles and constitutional values, the Supreme Court of India on April 8, 2025, issued a stern warning to Governors across the country, cautioning them against obstructing the functioning of duly elected State legislatures. The Court emphasized that such interference undermines the will of the people and violates the sanctity of the constitutional office held by Governors.
The verdict came in the context of actions taken by Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi, specifically his delay and inaction concerning a bill passed by the Tamil Nadu State Legislature. The judgment, delivered by a Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, underscored the constitutional responsibilities of a Governor and denounced any political misuse of this high office.
Background of the Case: Governor vs Elected Government
In recent years, several instances have emerged where Governors have been accused of using their constitutional position to delay or obstruct bills passed by State legislatures, especially in non-BJP-ruled States. Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi’s conduct has attracted scrutiny for repeatedly withholding or delaying assent to bills passed by the DMK-led government.
This judicial intervention stemmed from a petition concerning the Governor’s refusal to act on certain bills duly passed by the Tamil Nadu Assembly. The case raised critical constitutional questions regarding the discretionary powers of the Governor and their role in a parliamentary democracy.
Supreme Court’s Key Observations
The Supreme Court’s judgment is a landmark reiteration of the foundational principles of Indian federalism and democracy. The Court made it abundantly clear that the Governor is not a political agent but a constitutional authority who must function within the framework laid out by the Constitution.
1. Respect the Will of the People
The Bench stated unequivocally that Governors must not choke State legislatures or thwart the will of the people for political reasons. Legislators are elected representatives, and any attempt to sideline their decisions amounts to bypassing the democratic process.
“The Governor must be conscious to not create roadblocks or chokehold the State legislature in order to thwart and break the will of the people for political [reasons],” the Court remarked.
2. Constitutional Conventions Must Be Respected
The Court stressed that the Governor must act with due deference to settled parliamentary conventions. This includes timely assent to bills, working harmoniously with the elected government, and not becoming an obstacle in legislative processes.
“The members of the State legislature, having been elected by the people…are better attuned to ensure the well-being of the people of the State,” the Bench said.
3. The Governor’s Oath is Sacred
Citing the constitutional oath taken by Governors, the Court emphasized that any action taken in contradiction to the will of the legislature is a betrayal of that oath.
“Any action contrary to the express choice of the people…would be a renege of his constitutional oath,” the judgment said.
4. A Governor is a Catalyst, Not an Inhibitor
The Court called for Governors to act as guides and facilitators, not inhibitors. Their role is to bring consensus, not confrontation.
“He must be the catalyst and not an inhibitor…all his actions must be impelled, keeping in mind the dignity of the high constitutional office,” the judgment said.
Upholding the Spirit of the Constitution
In one of the most poignant parts of the judgment, the Supreme Court invoked the words of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar from the Constituent Assembly Debates, reminding the nation that the success of a constitution depends on those who are entrusted to implement it.
“However good a constitution may be, it is sure to turn out bad because those who are called to work it happen to be a bad lot. However bad a constitution may be, it may turn out to be good if those who are called to work it happen to be a good lot.”
This quote, the Court observed, is as relevant today as it was in 1949—if not more. The judges implored constitutional authorities to introspect whether their actions align with the spirit of the Constitution, and not short-term political considerations.
Political Neutrality and Constitutional Morality
The judgment serves as a critical reminder that Governors are not supposed to act as political appointees or agents of the Union Government, but rather as neutral custodians of the Constitution. The emphasis on constitutional morality, rather than political loyalty, is key to preserving India’s democratic structure.
The Court warned that if constitutional authorities act with deliberate intent to bypass or undermine the Constitution, they tinker with the very ideals upon which India stands.
“They must look within and reflect whether their actions are informed by that constitutional oath…If the authorities attempt to deliberately bypass the Constitution, they are tinkering with the very ideals revered by its people.”
Implications of the Verdict
This ruling is expected to have far-reaching implications, particularly for ongoing tensions between State governments and Governors. It reinforces the principle that the Governor is bound by the advice of the Council of Ministers, and while there is some room for discretion, it cannot be used arbitrarily or politically.
Legal scholars and political analysts have welcomed the verdict as a resounding defense of federalism, strengthening the autonomy of State governments and reinforcing democratic accountability.
Conclusion: A Triumph for Democratic Governance
In this landmark verdict, the Supreme Court of India has firmly reaffirmed that Governors must operate within the constitutional framework and respect the democratic will of the people. By cautioning against politically motivated obstructionism, the Court has upheld the values of parliamentary democracy, federalism, and constitutional morality.
This judgment comes at a crucial time when the balance of power between the Union and State governments is under strain. The Court’s message is clear: India’s Constitution is not a tool for political maneuvering—it is the foundation of a democratic republic, and all constitutional functionaries must honor it.
