Governors must know their place

A pattern of obstructioIn a much needed and clear-headed judgement, the Supreme Court has reminded Governors across India of a basic fact: they are not political gatekeepers. They are constitutional functionaries. And when they forget this, the Court will step in—as it did in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu.

At the centre of the case was Tamil Nadu governor R.N. Ravi, whose tenure has been marked by political friction, constitutional brinkmanship and a blatant disregard for democratic norms. That’s not a partisan statement—it’s what the record shows.

A pattern of obstruction

has made a habit of undermining the elected government in Tamil Nadu. He has refused to read full speeches prepared by the state government in the assembly. He has publicly dismissed the Dravidian model—a policy vision endorsed by Tamil Nadu’s voters—as ‘anti-national’. And more troublingly, he sat on bills for months, even years, without explanation.

One such bill was aimed at regulating online gambling—something Ravi himself claimed to support. Yet when it came back to him after being re-passed by the legislature, he escalated the matter to the President instead of giving his assent. It was a move that served no purpose other than delaying the bill. Let’s call it what it was: a political manoeuvre in constitutional clothing.

The Supreme Court steps in

The Supreme Court was unambiguous. Governors are not allowed to drag their feet to stall the will of elected governments. The Constitution allows them to return a bill once for reconsideration or to reserve it for the President. That’s it. What it does not allow is . Critics of the judgement claim the apex court overreached, especially by insisting on timelines. But this isn’t judicial invention. The principle of ‘reasonable time’ is baked into the Constitution.

A governor cannot take years to do something that should take weeks. Delaying governance is not a constitutional right; it’s a dereliction of duty. Others claim this weakens the President’s powers. That’s the wrong frame. The court’s ruling actually brings the states and Centre into better constitutional alignment. When Parliament re-passes a bill, the President must assent.

The same now applies to states; Governors who don’t like the ruling party have no special veto powers. And those upset about the use of Article 142? They miss the point. When a constitutional office-bearer refuses to do their job, the court has a duty to step in. Article 142 is not judicial overreach—it’s a constitutional safety net.

A signal to other governors

R.N. Ravi may have been the focus of this case, but the judgment sends a message well beyond Tamil Nadu. Governors in Kerala, Punjab and elsewhere should take heed: partisan posturing has no place in a constitutional office. The Supreme Court has reaffirmed a crucial principle—India’s democracy is powered by its legislatures, not its governors. When unelected officials stand in the way of elected governments, they betray the very spirit of federalism.

The bottom line

This isn’t about one Governor or one party. It’s about restoring balance to a system that has tilted too far in favour of political appointees wearing constitutional robes. The Supreme Court has drawn the line. Ravi crossed it. The Court pushed back. And democracy is better for it.