The Crossbill News Desk
Over 48 hours after the Supreme Court delivered a landmark ruling criticizing Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi’s handling of state legislation, the written judgment is yet to appear on the court’s official website — a delay that has raised eyebrows among legal journalists and observers.
The two-judge bench, led by Justice J.B. Pardiwala, had on April 9 delivered a significant ruling, holding that Governor Ravi’s move to indefinitely delay and then reserve 10 Bills passed by the Tamil Nadu Assembly for the President’s assent was “illegal and erroneous.”
The court strongly rebuked the governor’s actions, stating he had not acted “with bona fides,” noting that the Bills were sent to the President only after an inordinate delay.
Also read: Supreme Court Strikes Down TN Governor’s Move to Reserve 10 Bills for President
What has drawn further scrutiny is the unusual delay in making the judgment publicly available.
Among them was Murali Krishnan, senior legal journalist and editor (Court Matters) at Bar and Bench, who flagged the delay in a post on X on April 10: “The Supreme Court judgment on Governor’s powers is yet to be published on court website despite nearly two days having passed after it was pronounced. Usually , judgments are uploaded on the Court website within hours or even minutes of pronouncement.”
Interestingly, on the morning of April 11, the Supreme Court uploaded 13 judgments delivered between April 8 and 9, including another verdict by the same bench led by Justice Pardiwala. However, the ruling on the Tamil Nadu governor was still missing from the list, fueling further speculation and concern over the delay.
The ruling itself is politically significant, as it not only clarified the interpretation of Article 200 of the Constitution — which governs the powers of governors in relation to state legislation — but also cast a critical light on the central government’s relationship with opposition-led states. The verdict is widely seen as a rebuke to the Narendra Modi government’s handling of federal relations.
Following the judgment, there have been growing calls for Governor Ravi to resign, with many drawing parallels to the resignation of Buta Singh as Bihar governor in 2005, after he faced Supreme Court censure for unconstitutional conduct.
Legal experts and political analysts have underscored the importance of timely access to such a consequential ruling.
As the debate continues, all eyes remain on the Supreme Court registry for the formal release of the judgment that could have far-reaching implications for Centre-State relations and gubernatorial conduct.
The two-judge bench, led by Justice J.B. Pardiwala, had on April 9 delivered a significant ruling, holding that Governor Ravi’s move to indefinitely delay and then reserve 10 Bills passed by the Tamil Nadu Assembly for the President’s assent was “illegal and erroneous.”
The court strongly rebuked the governor’s actions, stating he had not acted “with bona fides,” noting that the Bills were sent to the President only after an inordinate delay.
Also read: Supreme Court Strikes Down TN Governor’s Move to Reserve 10 Bills for President
What has drawn further scrutiny is the unusual delay in making the judgment publicly available.
Among them was Murali Krishnan, senior legal journalist and editor (Court Matters) at Bar and Bench, who flagged the delay in a post on X on April 10: “The Supreme Court judgment on Governor’s powers is yet to be published on court website despite nearly two days having passed after it was pronounced. Usually , judgments are uploaded on the Court website within hours or even minutes of pronouncement.”
The Supreme Court judgment on Governor’s powers is yet to be published on court website despite nearly two days having passed after it was pronounced. Usually , judgments are uploaded on the Court website within hours or even minutes of pronouncement.
— Murali Krishnan (@legaljournalist) April 9, 2025
Interestingly, on the morning of April 11, the Supreme Court uploaded 13 judgments delivered between April 8 and 9, including another verdict by the same bench led by Justice Pardiwala. However, the ruling on the Tamil Nadu governor was still missing from the list, fueling further speculation and concern over the delay.
The ruling itself is politically significant, as it not only clarified the interpretation of Article 200 of the Constitution — which governs the powers of governors in relation to state legislation — but also cast a critical light on the central government’s relationship with opposition-led states. The verdict is widely seen as a rebuke to the Narendra Modi government’s handling of federal relations.
Following the judgment, there have been growing calls for Governor Ravi to resign, with many drawing parallels to the resignation of Buta Singh as Bihar governor in 2005, after he faced Supreme Court censure for unconstitutional conduct.
Legal experts and political analysts have underscored the importance of timely access to such a consequential ruling.
As the debate continues, all eyes remain on the Supreme Court registry for the formal release of the judgment that could have far-reaching implications for Centre-State relations and gubernatorial conduct.
Comments (0)
Leave a Comment