Case against governor IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2025 IN THE MATTER OF: State of Tamil Nadu Through its Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu …PETITIONER VERSUS His Excellency, the Governor of Tamil Nadu Represented by the Principal Secretary to His Excellency, The Hon’ble Governor, For the State of Tamil Nadu …RESPONDENT NO.1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2025
IN THE MATTER OF:
State of Tamil Nadu
Through its Chief Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu …PETITIONER
VERSUS
His Excellency, the Governor of Tamil Nadu Represented by the Principal Secretary to His Excellency, The Hon’ble Governor, For the State of Tamil Nadu …RESPONDENT NO.1
Union of India
Represented by the Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs
Government of India
North Block
New Delhi- 110 001 …RESPONDENT NO.2
University Grants Commission (UGC), Through its Chairman,
Having office at
Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
ITO Metro Gate No. 3, Delhi-110002 …RESPONDENT NO.3
The present Writ Petition seeks to challenge the constitutionality of actions of Governor and clause 7.3 of UGC regulations 2018 with following a main and nterim prayer :-
a) Issue Writ/ Writs including in the nature of Writ of Declaration or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction to declare the act of the 1st Respondent/ Governor of Tamil Nadu in reserving “TN LA Bill No.21 of 2025 titled as The Tamil Nadu Physical Education and Sports University (Amendment) Bill, 2025” for the consideration of the 2nd Respondent/ President of India and all consequential acts arising therefrom as illegal, patently unconstitutional being inter-alia violative of Articles 163(1) and 200 of the Constitution and void-ab-initio;
b) Issue Writ/ Writs including a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction to call for the records of the first respondent pertaining to Letter No. 6331/Hr. Edn, -Dfg./2025 dt. 14.07.2025 and to quash the same as arbitrary, illegal, malafide exercise of power and unconstitutional being inter-alia violative of the Articles 163(1) and 200 of the Constitution;
c) Issue Writ/ Writs including a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction to direct the third Respondent to return “TN LA Bill No.21 of 2025 titled as The Tamil Nadu Physical Education and Sports University (Amendment) Bill, 2025” to the first Respondent and to further direct the Respondent No.1 to place the Bill before the Governor of Tamil Nadu for considering the same as per Article 200 in accordance with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers as contained in the Note for Circulation dated 06.05.2025 issued in this regard;
d) Issue Writ/Writs including in the nature of Writ of Declaration or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction to declare Regulation 7.3 of the UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2018 “UGC Regulations 2018” being beyond the legislative competence of the Union under List I Entry 66 and ultra-vires of the UGC Act, 1956.
e) Pass any other or further order/s or directions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the attendant facts and circumstances of the case and render justice.
INTERIM PRAYER
In view of the facts and circumstances as enumerated above, this Hon’ble Court may be graciously be pleased to: –
a) Issue an Ad interim injunction restraining Respondent No.2 and 3 from considering, processing or taking any decision on The “TN LA Bill No.21 of 2025 titled as The Tamil Nadu Physical Education and Sports University (Amendment) Bill, 2025” pending disposal of the Writ Petition;
b) Issue an order of interim direction to the Respondent No.2 and 3 to return “TN LA Bill No.21 of 2025 titled as The Tamil Nadu Physical Education and Sports University (Amendment) Bill, 2025” forthwith to the 1stRespondent with further direction to the 1stRespondent to place the said Bill before the Governor of Tamil Nadu to grant assent as per the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers contained in the Note for Circulation dated 06.05.2025 issued in this regard; and
c) Pass any other or further order/s or directions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the attendant facts and circumstances of the case and render justice.
:Facts:
The Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly had enacted “TN LA Bill No.21 of 2025 titled as The Tamil Nadu Physical Education and Sports University (Amendment) Bill, 2025” “Bill” to amend certain provisions of The Tamil Nadu Physical Education and Sports University Act, 2004 by vesting the powers of the appointment and removal of the Vice-Chancellor to the State Government instead of the Chancellor i.e. the Governor. These amendments were brought in tune with the 10 Bills which were deemed to be assented by the Governor by virtue of the operation of the decision of this Hon’ble Court in the judgement of the State of Tamil Nadu vs. Governor of Tamil Nadu WP(C) No. 1239 of 2025.
The Bill was introduced in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly on 29.04.2025 and was unanimously passed on the same day. Thereafter, on 06.05.2025 the Bill was sent to the Governor for their assent on the same day alongwith the aid and advice of the Hon’bleChief Minister and Council of Ministers advising the Hon’ble Governor to grant assent. However, the Governor in disregard to the aid and advice of the Hon’ble Chief Minister and Council of ministers has ventured into testing the constitution validity of the Bill on his own thereby converting Raj Bhawan as Constitutional Court and has unilaterally reserved the Bill for the assent of Hon’ble President of India on 14.7.2025 on the ground that some of the provisions of the Bill which to be enacted werein violation of Clause 7.3 of UGC regulation 2018. Such declaration under Article 200 to reserve the Bill for the consideration of the Hon’ble President by the Governor is against the aid and advise of the Chief Minister and Council of Ministers besides unconstitutional and is without jurisdiction.
The Governor of Tamil Nadu has taken the unprecedented step of exercising judicial review powers over a Bill enacted by the State Assembly and has converted Article200 jurisdiction to Article 32/226 jurisdictionvested with the constitutional courts.
It is a settled principle of laid down by this Hon’ble Court in a catena of decisions such as Shamsher Singh vs. State of Punjab (1974) 2 SCC 831, Nabam Rebia & Bamang Felix v. Deputy Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly (2016) 8 SCC 1, State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 770 that the Article 200 does not envisage any discretionary power to the Governor for exercising any constitutional functions thereunder which are contrary to the aid and advice of the council of ministers.
It is shocking that despite the Note for Circulation dated 06.05.2025 circulated by the Hon’ble Minister of Law, endorsed by the Hon’ble Deputy Chief Minister and the Hon’bleChief Minister of the Petitioner State clearly enumerates that the Bill was within the powers of the Governor to accord assent the Bill, the Governor has unilaterally declared to reserve the Bill for the consideration of the Hon’blePresident. The relevant extracts in the note sent to Governor are enumerated hereinbelow:
“3. The Bill falls within the scope of the following entries in the State List and Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution namely-
CONCURRENT LIST
Entry 25.- Education, including technical education, medical education and universities, subject to the provisions of the Entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I; vocational and technical training of labour; and
and is intra-vires the State Legislature.
4. It is, therefore, within the powers of the Hon’ble Governor to accord to assent to the Bill.”
It is pertinent to mention herein that the principal Act i.e. The Tamil Nadu Physical Education and Sports University Act, 2004 was assented by the Hon’ble President on 4th August 2005 and “The Tamil Nadu Physical Education and Sports University (Amendment) Bill, 2025” does not contain any provision repugnant to a substantive law of the Parliament.
However, the Governor despite being aware of the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers under the Note for Circulation has independently presumed that the proposed amended Section 12(i) and the proposed amended Section 12(2) of the “The Tamil Nadu Physical Education and Sports University (Amendment) Bill, 2025” are repugnant of the UGC Regulations 2018 since according to the Governor, the UGC Regulations enacted under List I Entry 66 would have supremacy which is completely erroneous
Moreover, the above alleged “reasons” provided by the Governor are completely pre-mature at the present stage as firstly, Regulation 7.3 is clearly not applicable to the Petitioner State and secondly, at the Bill stage the Governor is not empowered with any jurisdiction by the constitution to enquire into the constitutional vires of the Bill as the same can be tested after it becomes a law in the anvil of Article 254(2).These objections clearly reflect that theGovernor is conducting a fishing exercise to thwart bona-fide efforts of the State in wilful ignorance of the settled law laid by this Hon’bleCourt in a catena of decisions.
The Impugned Letter issued by the Respondent No.1 clearly reflects a constitutional deadlock between the Governor and the Petitioner State wherein the Governor in defiance of the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers and in his own discretion has reserved the Bill for the consideration of the President without considering their nature and purport
The Governor is not an all-pervading constitutional authority judging and examining the constitutional validity of each Bill passed by the Legislature. The Governor has transformed the Raj Bhawan into a constitutional court by adjudicating upon the constitutionality of a Bill without even considering the Note for Circulation shared with the Bill or consulting the Council of Ministers to resolve any potential issues with the Bill which is patently violative of the Articles 163(1) and 200 of the Constitution.
The Regulation 7.3 of UGC Regulations 2018travels beyond the Legislative competence of the Union under Entry 66 List I and the UGC Act, 1956 therefore, it is unconstitutional and ultra-vires of the UGC Act, 1956
The Governor despite being fully aware of the settled position of law regarding exercise of discretion under Article 200 of the Constitution as laid down by this Hon’ble Court in a catena of decisions and the fact that the Petitioner State has consciously chosen not to adopt the UGC Regulations in their entirety, still chose to reserve the Bill for the consideration of the President in defiance of the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. The reasons stated by the Governor under the Impugned Letter clearly demonstrate a mala-fide conduct with the sole aim to thwart any bona-fide effort by the State Legislature and illegally usurp the legislative power of the State Legislature.
The Impugned Letter issued by the Respondent No.1 also demonstrates a *uniform pattern* pursued by the Governor by completely disregarding the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers and exercising their own discretion in the course of their constitutional duties under the Article 200. A similar approach was followed by the Governor in the case of State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu WP(C) No. 1239 of 2023 wherein the Governor had reserved a total of 10 Bills for the consideration of the President when the Bills were re-enacted by the State Legislative Assembly in pursuit of the first proviso of the Article 200. This Hon’bleCourt while declaring that the Governor’s acts of reserving the Bills for the consideration of the President were unconstitutional and exhaustively laid down the following:
“432. The conduct exhibited on part of the Governor, as it clearly appears from the events that have transpired even during the course of the present litigation, has been lacking in bonafides. There have been clear instances where the Governor has failed in showing due deference and respect to the judgments and directions of this Court. In such a situation, it is difficult for us to repose our trust and remand the matter to the Governor with a direction to dispose of the bills in accordance with the observations made by us in this judgment………..
434….
(XVI) …………
Under Article 200 of the Constitution, the Governor does not possess any discretion in the exercise of his functions and has to mandatorily abide by the advice tendered to him by the Council of Ministers. The only exceptions to this general rule are as follows:
i) Where the bill is of a description as provided under the second proviso to Article 200;
ii) Where the bill is of a nature covered by Articles 31A, 31C, 254(2), 288(2), 360(4)(a)(ii) etc. wherein assent of the President is a condition precedent before the bill can take effect as law;
iii) Where the bill is of a nature that if allowed to take effect then it would undermine the Constitution by placing the fundamental principles of a representative democracy in peril.”
The facts and circumstances of the present case clearly demonstrate that the Governor instead of respecting the will of the people represented through a duly elected State Government, is attempting to impose a policy envisaged by the Union Government which is completely contrary to the State’s policy and legislation, with an intent to completely subvert the legislative power of the State under Entry 25 List III read with Entry 32 List II of the Constitution. Such actions by the Governor are antithetical to the roles and responsibilities envisaged by the Constitution and patently violative of the Article 200 despite being duly apprised by the Council of Ministers that the said Bill is in-fact intra vires of the State Legislature.
This Hon’ble Court in State of Tamil Nadu (supra) had opined that when the Governor has reserved a Bill on the basis of personal dissatisfaction of the Governor, political expediency or any other extraneous or irrelevant considerations is strictly impermissible by the Constitution and would be liable to be set-aside forthwith on that ground alone. The relevant paragraph is enumerated hereinbelow:
(XXIV) We summarise our findings on judicial review of the exercise of power by the Governor under Article 200 and the exercise of power by the President under Article 201 as follows:
a. Where the Governor reserves a bill for the consideration of the President in his own discretion and contrary to the aid and advice tendered to him by the State Council of Ministers, it shall be open to the State Government to assail such an action before the appropriate High Court or this Court. Such a challenge can broadly be made on the following grounds:
……
iv) Reservation of a bill on grounds other than the ones mentioned above, such as personal dissatisfaction of the Governor, political expediency or any other extraneous or irrelevant considerations is strictly impermissible by the Constitution and would be liable to be set-aside forthwith on that ground alone. This will also encompass reservation of a bill by the Governor after having already exercised the option of withholding of assent in terms of Article 200 except in such exceptional circumstance as mentioned in paragraph 204 of this judgment.
In view of the attendant circumstances, the Petitioner has no other alternate or efficacious remedy except to file the present Writ Petition before this Hon’ble Court by invoking Article 32 of the Constitution of India and have approached this Hon’ble Court to resolve the hostile situation between the Petitioner State and the Governor.
SETTLED BY:
P. Wilson, Senior Advocate
FILED BY
T. Harish Kumar
