The Supreme Court on Friday urged Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi and the ruling DMK government to resolve their prolonged conflict over the appointment of vice chancellors for state-run universities. 

A bench led by Justice SB Pardiwala emphasized the need for resolution, stating, “By the next date of hearing, if this issue is resolved, it will be well and good. Otherwise, we will step in to resolve it.”  

The dispute arises from the governor's insistence on appointing vice chancellors in his capacity as the honorary chancellor of Tamil Nadu's state universities. Meanwhile, the DMK government has sought to curtail his powers through several bills, which the Governor has refused to clear. 

The controversy escalated when the state government challenged Mr. Ravi's decision to form a committee to appoint vice chancellors for the University of Madras, Bharathiar University, and Tamil Nadu Teachers Training University.

The DMK called the governor’s actions "illegal" and reconstituted the search committees, excluding members from the University Grants Commission. Mr. Ravi eventually withdrew the committees he had set up.  

In addition to the vice chancellor appointments, the two sides are also at odds over the governor’s authority to make appointments to the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. 

The DMK had earlier approached the court, accusing Mr. Ravi, a BJP appointee, of deliberately delaying several bills, including some passed during the previous AIADMK regime, to hinder the state’s development and undermine its elected administration. 

In a hearing in November 2023, the court took note of the delays, questioning the Governor's inaction, “These bills have been pending since 2020. What were you doing for three years?”

The bench pointed out that under Article 200 of the Constitution, a Governor has only three options: to grant assent to a bill, withhold assent, or refer it to the president. 

The court also sought clarification on the Governor’s power to withhold assent without returning the bills to the Assembly. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Governor, argued that a Governor is “not a mere technical supervisor” and plays an important role in the legislative process. 

The case also mirrors similar disputes involving Governors in Punjab and Kerala, raising questions about the balance of power between governors and elected state governments.