In a significant rebuke to creeping gubernatorial arrogance, the Supreme Court has finally placed a constitutional mirror before the conduct of some of India’s Governors. The spotlight, though national in implication, has firmly been on Tamil Nadu ~ a state where the Governor’s office has, in recent years, increasingly appeared more as an extension of political gamesmanship than as a neutral constitutional post. The top court’s observations ~ particularly on Governor R.N. Ravi’s habit of withholding or indefinitely delaying as – sent to bills ~ could not have come at a more crucial time. The judiciary reminded the nation that Governors are not political gatekeepers but constitutional custodians, bound by the advice of elected governments. It is an assertion of federalism that was overdue and one that makes Mr Ravi’s position untenable.

In Tamil Nadu, the tension between Raj Bhavan and Fort St. George has escalated to almost comical levels. Bills passed by a democratically elected assembly were allowed to languish on the Governor’s desk, sometimes for over a year, with no communication, no reason, and no sense of constitutional duty. When cornered, the Governor simply returned the bills ~ only to have the assembly pass them again, leaving Mr Ravi with no option constitutionally but to assent. Instead, the Governor chose to forward them to the President. It’s not governance; it’s theatre.

Advertisement

And citizens are the collateral. Such delays and discretionary overreach not only erode public faith in constitutional offices but also stall governance, disrupting the delivery of essential services and democratic processes at the state level. This behaviour, however, is not unique to Tamil Nadu. Governors in several opposition-ruled states ~ from Kerala to Punjab ~ have exhibited a similar pattern: delay, deflect, deny. It reflects a systemic malaise, where the central government, by way of appointed Governors, appears to use constitutional positions to undermine state autonomy.

What the Supreme Court has done is to remind everyone ~ especially those sitting in Raj Bhavans ~ that their powers are not discretionary in the political sense. Article 200 of the Constitution is not a loophole for ideological obstruction. Delays and non-replies are not neutral acts; they are anti-democratic. The ruling, however, is only a legal milestone. The real test is political. Will the Centre recalibrate its approach and respect the federal spirit, or will Governors continue to act as agents of partisan interest? Will Parliament consider reforming the appointment and accountability mechanisms for Governors?

Or will these posts continue to serve as retirement rewards for loyalists? India’s democracy was designed to be federal in structure and spirit. The misuse of gubernatorial power strikes at the heart of that balance. If the Centre continues to treat states as administrative outposts rather than equal partners, it weakens not just state governments but the Republic itself. The judiciary has done its duty. It is now up to the political class to follow suit ~ or be assessed by the people as having failed to uphold the Constitution.