Constitutional Clash: Tamil Nadu Drags Governor to Supreme Court Over Key University Bill

In a significant legal escalation, the Tamil Nadu government has taken its ongoing constitutional skirmish with Governor R N Ravi directly to the Supreme Court. The state has filed a robust writ petition, challenging the Governor's contentious decision to forward the crucial 'Dr. Kalaignar M Karunanidhi Veterinary and Animal Sciences University Bill, 2022' to the President for assent, instead of acting upon it himself.

This bold move by the Chief Secretary of Tamil Nadu, on behalf of the state, names both the Union of India (through the Ministry of Home Affairs) and Governor R N Ravi as respondents.

At the heart of the dispute lies the Governor’s interpretation and application of constitutional provisions, particularly Article 200 and Article 201, which govern the Governor's powers concerning state legislative bills.

The state's petition argues vehemently that Governor Ravi’s action of withholding assent to the Bill and then subsequently reserving it for the President is not only arbitrary but also a direct violation of the fundamental principles of federalism and the basic structure of the Indian Constitution.

According to the state, Article 200 clearly outlines the Governor's options: grant assent, withhold assent and return the Bill to the Assembly for reconsideration, or reserve it for the President. The state contends that combining the act of 'withholding assent' with 'reserving for the President' creates an "extraneous" and unconstitutional scenario, leading to a profound "constitutional deadlock."

This isn't an isolated incident but rather the latest chapter in a series of legislative standoffs between the Tamil Nadu government and Governor Ravi.

Previously, the Governor had reserved the contentious NEET exemption Bill for presidential consideration, which was eventually returned by the President. Another notable instance involved the Bill to ban online rummy, which, after initial reservation, received the Governor's assent only after a Supreme Court ruling on a related matter highlighted the urgency and legislative intent.

The current legal challenge seeks a declaration from the apex court that the Governor's decision to reserve the Kalaignar Veterinary University Bill for the President's consideration is unconstitutional, null, and void.

Furthermore, the petition urges the Supreme Court to direct Governor Ravi to grant his assent to the Bill, thereby allowing the state's legislative process to proceed as intended by its elected representatives.

This high-stakes legal battle underscores the delicate balance of power between state governments and the gubernatorial office, especially in states where the ruling party differs from that at the Centre.

The Supreme Court's eventual ruling on this petition will not only impact the fate of the Kalaignar Veterinary University Bill but will also set crucial precedents for federal relations and the exercise of gubernatorial powers across India, potentially redefining the scope of state legislative autonomy.