The significance of the Supreme Court's ruling regarding the Governor of Tamil Nadu lies in the rare invocation of its powers, which sends a powerful message

By exercising its exceptional authority to effectively approve ten Bills awaiting the approval of Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi, the Supreme Court conveyed a significant message on Tuesday, indicating its dissatisfaction with the actions of the Raj Bhavan.

The panel of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan invoked Article 142 to assume the responsibilities typically assigned to the Governor within the legislative process. This extraordinary power to issue orders aimed at achieving “complete justice” is rarely utilized by the Court, particularly when it pertains to other Constitutional entities.

Additionally, the Court has redefined the scope of the Governor’s powers by establishing a one-month deadline for the exercise of his legislative authority. This decision is expected to influence a similar case regarding the powers of the former Kerala Governor Arif Mohammad Khan in withholding assent to Bills passed by the state Assembly.

While there have been numerous instances where another Constitutional authority, the Speaker of an Assembly, has delayed decisions on disqualification cases under the Tenth Schedule, the Court has been cautious about imposing similar deadlines.

The introduction of time limits for the exercise of powers marks the latest development in a series of rulings that have curtailed the authority of the Governor. In the landmark 1974 case of Shamsher Singh v State of Punjab, the Supreme Court affirmed that the Governor must act according to the advice of the Council of Ministers as a general rule, with discretionary powers being an exception.

In the significant 2006 ruling of Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India, the Court determined that the personal opinion of the Governor cannot justify the imposition of President’s Rule.

Furthermore, regarding the Governor's judicial powers in granting pardons and mercy, the Supreme Court stated in 2006 that such decisions would be subject to limited judicial review.

In 2016, the Supreme Court's Constitution Bench addressed the case of Nabam Rebia and Bamang Felix vs. Deputy Speaker of the Arunachal Pradesh Assembly, clearly stating that the authority to summon the House does not rest solely with the Governor.

In 2023, the Punjab government approached the Supreme Court regarding Governor Banwarilal Purohit's refusal to convene the Budget session of the Vidhan Sabha.

The Court clarified, "When the House is in session, it is the Speaker who can call for a floor test. However, when the Assembly is not in session, the Governor's residual powers under Article 163 permit him to call for a floor test."

Nevertheless, two politically sensitive areas are likely to face judicial examination concerning the Governor's role: the authority to grant prosecution sanctions against state government officials and the power to invite political parties to form a government.

The Karnataka case, in which Governor Thawar Chand Gehlot approved the prosecution of Chief Minister Siddharamaiah in the MUDA case, is expected to raise these issues in court.

The Governor's involvement in government formation has also been scrutinized multiple times by the Supreme Court. In 2017, the then Karnataka Governor Vaju Bhai Vala faced questions regarding his decision to invite the BJP, the largest single party, to form the government instead of the stronger post-poll alliance of Congress and JD (S). While the Court has suggested floor tests as a temporary remedy, broader legal questions remain unresolved.