Governors Can’t Just Do Whatever They Want

This week, the Supreme Court (SC) made a big decision that will affect how state governments work with governors all over India – not just in Tamil Nadu.

Here’s what happened: The governor of Tamil Nadu, RN Ravi, didn’t approve 10 new laws (called “bills”) that the state government had passed. One of those had been waiting since January 2020! These laws were important because they would give the Tamil Nadu government more control over colleges and universities in the state. But the governor just kept delaying them.

The SC said that’s not okay. The judges explained that a governor cannot hold up laws just because they don’t like them or because the central government might not agree. That’s not how democracy works.

In India, people vote for their state leaders, like the chief minister (CM), to make decisions for them. The governor is not elected by the people. So the court said it’s the CM and the state legislature – the group of people elected by the public – who should decide what’s best for the state.

And it’s not just about Tamil Nadu. This kind of thing has been happening in other states too, like Kerala, Punjab, West Bengal, and Telangana, where governors are stopping laws or refusing to hold important meetings.

The court made one very clear rule: if a governor doesn’t like a bill, they must return it within three months – not take forever. Before, the Constitution said they had to return it “as soon as possible,” but that wasn’t clear. Now, there’s a time limit.

This decision is important because it makes sure the people who were actually elected get to do their jobs. It helps protect fairness between the state governments and the central government – something called federalism.