Sun Oct 05 00:15:00 UTC 2025: Here’s a summary and a news article based on the provided text:

**Summary:**

The Tamil Nadu government has filed a petition with the Supreme Court against Governor R.N. Ravi’s decision to reserve the Kalaignar University Bill 2025 for presidential consideration instead of granting assent as advised by the State Cabinet. The government argues this action is unconstitutional and seeks the court’s directive for the Governor to act according to the Constitution’s Article 200, following the advice of the Council of Ministers. This legal challenge comes in the wake of a prior Supreme Court judgment that imposed a deadline for Governors and the President to act on pending bills, a matter that is still under consideration by the court.

**News Article:**

**Tamil Nadu Government Battles Governor in Supreme Court Over University Bill**

**NEW DELHI, October 5, 2025** – The Tamil Nadu government has escalated its ongoing dispute with Governor R.N. Ravi to the Supreme Court, challenging his decision to reserve the Kalaignar University Bill 2025 for presidential consideration. The move, filed on Saturday, October 4, alleges that the Governor’s action contravenes constitutional principles and undermines the authority of the elected state government.

Represented by senior advocate P. Wilson, the Tamil Nadu government is seeking a Supreme Court order declaring the Governor’s decision “illegal, patently unconstitutional, and void-ab-initio.” They contend that Governor Ravi is obligated under Article 200 of the Constitution to grant assent to the bill, following the advice of the State Cabinet.

This legal challenge unfolds against the backdrop of a previous Supreme Court ruling which set a three-month deadline for Governors and the President to act on pending bills. This ruling is related to a Presidential Reference currently before the court, which delves into the extent of a Governor’s discretionary powers concerning bill assent.

The heart of the matter lies in the interpretation of Article 200 and whether Governors can bypass the advice of the State Cabinet when deciding to grant assent or reserve bills for the President. This case adds another layer of complexity to the ongoing friction between opposition-ruled states and their Governors regarding the approval of crucial legislation. The Supreme Court’s decision could have far-reaching implications for the balance of power between state governments and Governors nationwide.

Read More