Fri Jan 17 11:49:55 UTC 2025: ## Supreme Court Intervenes in Tamil Nadu Governor-DMK Standoff Over Bills

**NEW DELHI** – The Supreme Court issued a stern warning on Friday to Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi and the ruling Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party, demanding a resolution to their long-running dispute over pending bills and university vice-chancellor appointments. The court gave both sides an ultimatum: resolve the matter by the next hearing or face court-mandated resolution.

The conflict centers on ten bills passed by the Tamil Nadu state legislature, of which the Governor has only approved one. Seven remain unsigned, effectively preventing their enactment into law, while the remaining two remain unaddressed. The DMK alleges that Governor Ravi, appointed by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), is deliberately delaying the bills to hinder the state government’s progress. A key point of contention is the Governor’s insistence on including a nominee from the University Grants Commission in committees appointing vice-chancellors, a move the state government claims violates university statutes.

The state government initially challenged the Governor’s actions as unconstitutional and illegal, seeking a court order compelling him to approve the bills. Last year, this escalated when Governor Ravi unilaterally formed committees for vice-chancellor appointments, a move the state deemed illegal and subsequently overturned. The Governor later withdrew the committees he had established.

The Supreme Court has previously expressed serious concern about the Governor’s actions, questioning the three-year delay in addressing the bills and highlighting the constitutional limitations on a Governor’s power to withhold assent. The court emphasized the Governor’s limited options under Article 200 of the Constitution: assent, refusal with return to the assembly, or referral to the President. The Solicitor General, representing Governor Ravi, argued that the Governor plays a crucial role beyond mere technical supervision.

The court’s strong stance indicates a potential decisive intervention if the parties fail to reach an agreement, underscoring the seriousness of the ongoing political impasse between the state government and the Governor.

Read More