Dhankhar Calls Out SC’s Judicial Overreach In Tamil Nadu Governor Verdict

In April 2024, the Tamil Nadu DMK Government accused Governor R.N. Ravi of holding up over a dozen bills ranging from university appointments to the controversial anti-NEET legislation.

Fast forward to 8 April 2025, the Supreme Court dropped a massive 415-page ruling calling the Governor’s actions ‘illegal’ and ‘erroneous.’ But this was just the beginning. The Court went a step ahead and passed all the pending bills and set strict deadlines for the Governor and the President to adhere to.

Further, it handed the state governments a legal weapon: a mandamus writ to drag the non-compliant ones to court. That’s right, the Court’s basically saying, “Do your job, or we’ll make you.”

What had really transpired in the minds of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan? This ruling didn’t just spark a debate—it ignited a huge political firestorm. Some cheered it as a necessary check on obstructive Governors, while others called out the verdict as a shameless legal power grab and a classic case of judicial overreach.

Vice President Shri Jagdeep Dhankhar also slammed the Court, saying, “The President being called upon to decide in a time-bound manner, and if not, it becomes law. So, we have judges who will legislate, who will perform executive functions, who will act as super Parliament, and absolutely have no accountability because the law of the land does not apply to them."

So, who’s really calling the shots on state bills—the Governor, the President, or the judiciary?

Article 200: A Rulebook Completely Overlooked by the Court

What has begun now is a constitutional tug-of-war, at the heart of which lies Article 200. It empowers the Governor to assent, withhold, or reserve for the President’s consideration any bill passed by the state legislature.

The SC stepped in, declaring that Governors couldn’t simply sit on bills forever and must decide within a ‘reasonable timeframe.’ But here's the kicker: the Constitution doesn't actually say how long that "reasonable time" is! It's like the Court is making up the rules as it goes along.

The same Court that takes ages to resolve its own cases is now very comfortably lecturing Governors to hurry up? Even the Punchhi Commission (2010) pointed out that the Constitution doesn't set any deadlines for Governors on these bills. Though they suggested a six-month limit, it was never actually implemented.

So, by imposing an artificial timeline where none exists, the Court has overstepped its mandate from interpretation to rewriting the rulebook. It is basically doing the job of lawmakers.

So, the big question is: How on earth is the Court making such grand pronouncements? In fact, the Court itself, in Purushothaman Nambudiri v. State of Kerala, has expressly rejected the idea of incorporating a time limit in Article 200. The irony here stands pretty loud!

Contrary to whatever these high and mighty judges seem to believe, the Constitution under Article 163(1) enables Governors to use their own discretion and does not always require the approval of the Council of Ministers. Cases like Madhya Pradesh Special Police v. State Of Madhya Pradesh have made it crystal clear that if the Governor believes a bill goes against the Constitution, they can decide what to do about it, and don't always need the state government's advice first.

This crucial deliberation the Governor needs to do before making a call on a bill isn't some simple cookie-cutter exercise the Court can slap a time limit on. It demands careful thought, not arbitrary deadlines.

What's utterly baffling is the Court's blatant oversight here. Just because the Governor initially withholds assent to a bill, it doesn't magically erase their power to send it to the President’s final decision. Simply because the state government re-passes the same bill, it doesn't strip away the Governor's right to involve the President. If the power was there back then, how can it simply cease to exist now?

And let’s clarify this once and for all: if a state law clearly contradicts a central law, the Governor isn't even obligated to send it back with any suggestions whatsoever. They can flat-out withhold assent or, better yet, send it directly to the President where it belongs. The Court's failure to grasp this basic constitutional reality is frankly astounding here.

The 'Complete Justice' Clause — A Trojan Horse for Judicial Supremacy

To bring the whole verdict to fruition, the SC has outrightly weaponized the ‘complete justice’ clause (Article 142). The Court is now prescribing made-up timelines for the Governors and the President and threatening judicial intervention if they don’t comply.

At this point, this isn’t justice—it’s a brazen act of judicial imperialism. The Court conveniently overlooks its own precedent made in Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Bihar, which clearly says that the President's assent cannot be challenged in court. Apparently, ‘non-justiciability’ only applies when it's convenient to judicial overlords.

And the nightmare doesn't end here. The SC asked the President or Governors to justify their actions before a court. That's a direct slap in the face of Article 361, which specifically grants them legal immunity. If Courts can force immunity-clad offices now, what's next? Demanding to know what the President talks about in private? It sounds like a complete erosion of executive independence.

Thus, the whole judgment is a recipe for a constitutional mess where no presidential action is beyond judicial second-guessing. Though rarely used earlier, the Supreme Court now treats Article 142 as an unlimited license to rewrite governance. In 2024 alone, it has used this provision thrice.

However, the real shocker lies ahead. The SC declared that if a Governor thinks a bill poses “a threat to democracy” and reserves it for the President's consideration, the President must refer this matter to Court under Article 143. Let that sink in.

Now the Court is dictating how the head of state must exercise power. This is an extraordinary encroachment into the executive domain. At this point, the Court isn't just interpreting; it's actively rewriting the Constitution. It's terrifyingly easy to imagine how future benches could label any policy disagreement as "threats to democracy" and demand the keys to the kingdom.

This isn’t just about one case—it’s a clear-cut blueprint for judicial hegemony.

The Obsolete Governor: Vice President’s Nuclear Critique of the Judiciary

Vice President Shri Jagdeep Dhankhar not only critiqued the judgment but also warned the nation of such detrimental legal pronouncements. His assertion that the judiciary is acting as a “super Parliament” is supported by the Court’s imposition of a three-month deadline for Governors and the President to act on bills, a timeline that is absent in the Constitution.

Moreover, the verdict also curtails the discretionary powers of Governors and the President—explicitly provided under Articles 163(1) and 200.

Dhankhar’s description of Article 142 as a “nuclear missile against democratic forces available to the judiciary 24x7” is validated since the Court used the “complete justice” clause to justify the enactment of 10 Tamil Nadu bills without executive assent, which is a first in Indian history. The Governor's "yes" has become obsolete and laws are just popping up without any executive approval.

The ruling’s requirement for Governors and the President to justify delays before courts stands in contravention to Article 361, which grants them legal immunity. Dhankhar’s rightful concern about judges operating above the law warns us against this very lethal precedent being set by the Supreme Court.

The overall critique underscores a broader concern: the judiciary’s actions risk upsetting the delicate balance of power in India’s democracy. The Supreme Court has overstepped the mandate of Article 145(3), a clause that empowers judges to interpret the Constitution.

In a sweeping show of power, it has positioned itself as a de facto legislature, unaccountable to the electorate. By usurping the executive’s role and ‘deeming’ bills into law, the judiciary actively encroaches on the domain of the legislature and executive.

The growing criticism of the judgment also comes from a plethora of legal experts like Allahabad High Court advocate Rajan Singh, who cautioned that the judiciary could get "deeper into the machinery of governance," and that the use of Article 142 could have "unpredictable consequences" in future.

Even Kerala Governor Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar stated in all fairness that “asking the Executive to act within a time-limit on Bills passed by the state legislature is neither given nor implied in the Constitution.”

With the Attorney General of India, R. Venkataramani, stating that the judgment was delivered without hearing the side of the President and the central government, we must ask: are we entering an era of governance-by-judicial-decree? Are judge-made laws going to be the new normal?