Chennai— The Tamil Nadu Government has approached the Supreme Court challenging Governor RN Ravi’s decision to reserve the Kalaignar University Bill, 2025 for the President’s consideration, alleging that the move defied the advice of the state’s Council of Ministers.
The Bill, passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly earlier this year, seeks to establish a new state university named after former Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi, popularly known as Kalaignar. The proposed university aims to enhance access to higher education, promote Tamil culture and language, and strengthen research aligned with the values of social justice.
In its petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, the state government has urged the top court to declare the Governor’s action as “illegal, unconstitutional, and void ab initio.” It argued that the decision violated Articles 163(1) and 200 of the Constitution, which mandate that the Governor must act on the advice of the Council of Ministers, except in specific discretionary situations.
Tamil Nadu also sought directions compelling the Governor to act in accordance with Article 200 and the advice of the Council of Ministers regarding the Bill’s assent. The petition requested the quashing of the Governor’s July 14, 2025, communication to refer the Bill to the President.
The state asserted that the Governor lacks independent authority to reserve such Bills unless they fall within constitutionally defined exceptions.
This marks the second phase of legal confrontation between the Tamil Nadu Government and the Governor over the Bill-assent issue. Earlier, on April 8, the Supreme Court had struck down the Governor’s move to withhold assent for ten Bills and reserve them for presidential consideration even after re-enactment by the Assembly, terming the act “illegal and erroneous.”
In May, President Droupadi Murmu had referred 14 constitutional questions to the Supreme Court under Article 143, seeking clarity on the court’s earlier ruling that fixed time limits for Governors and the President to decide on Bills. After extensive hearings, the court reserved its verdict on September 11.
Although the Supreme Court’s opinion on a Presidential Reference under Article 143 is not binding, the court is expected to provide reasons if it chooses not to respond to the President’s queries.
