Tamil Nadu Govt moves SC against Governor reserving Kalaignar University Bill for President's assent

The Tamil Nadu Government has moved the Supreme Court against Governor N Ravi’s decision to reserve the Kalaignar University Bill, 2025 passed by the state assembly for the consideration of the President, ignoring the state Council of Ministers’ advice to grant assent to it.

Passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly earlier this year, the Kalaignar University Bill, 2025, seeks to establish a new state university named after former Chief Minister M Karunanidhi -- popularly known as ‘Kalaignar’.

It aimed to expand access to higher education, fostering research, and promoting Tamil language, culture, and social justice values through its academic framework.

In its petition filed under Article 32, the Tamil Nadu Government has urged the top court to declare the Governor's decision and "all consequential acts arising therefrom" as illegal, patently unconstitutional, and void ab-initio, being violative of Article 163(1) and Article 200 of the Constitution.

Article 163(1) says, “There shall be a Council of Ministers with the Chief Minister at the head to aid and advise the Governor in the exercise of his functions, except in so far as he is by or under this Constitution required to exercise his functions or any of them in his discretion.” Article 200 talks about grant of assent by the Governor to Bills passed by the state legislature.

The state government has also sought a direction to the Governor to act under Article 200 in accordance with the aid and advice of the state Council of Ministers.

The State has sought a declaration that the Governor's decision to reserve the Bill as unconstitutional and to quash the Governor's communication July 14, 2025 conveying the decision to refer the Bill to the President.

The Tamil Nadu Government asserted that under the constitutional scheme, the Governor was bound to act on the aid and advice of the state Council of Ministers and that he had no independent discretion to reserve such a Bill, unless it fell within the specific exceptions mandated under the Constitution.

This is the second round of litigation before the top court over the contentious issue. The top court had on April 8 set aside Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi’s decision to withhold assent for 10 Bills and reserving them to the President even after they were re-enacted by the state assembly, terming it "illegal and erroneous".

However, invoking Article 143 of the Constitution, President Droupadi Murmu had in May sought the Supreme Court’s opinion on 14 questions arising out of the verdict fixing deadlines for Governors and the President to take a call on Bills passed by state Assemblies.

After 10 days of marathon arguments, the Supreme Court on September 11 reserved its verdict on the Presidential Reference over its judgment imposing timelines for governors and the President to grant assent to Bills passed by state legislatures.

The Supreme Court’s opinion on a Reference under Article 143 is not binding on the President and it’s not a binding law within the meaning of Article 141. It’s open to the top court to answer the reference or not. However, in case it does not want to answer the Reference, the court has to give reasons.