End of chapter: On Governors and reshuffle

An inglorious chapter of unedifying lessons in constitutional statecraft may be ending in Tamil Nadu with the transfer of Governor R.N. Ravi to West Bengal following the sudden and inexplicable resignation of incumbent C.V. Ananda Bose. The gubernatorial change of guard in these poll-bound States comes alongside that of five other States and two Union Territories. Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar, Governor of Kerala, another State facing elections, will hold additional charge in Tamil Nadu. While Mr. Bose and Mr. Ravi had repeatedly administered political pinpricks to elected governments, Mr. Bose’s relations with West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee had recently improved. Mr. Ravi made no such allowances to the M.K. Stalin dispensation. As recently as January, he walked out of the Assembly, for the fourth year. Each time, he found a reason or manufactured an excuse for not fulfilling his mandate of delivering the Special Address to the House, under Article 176. Relations between Lok Bhavan and Fort St. George have remained strained since 2022, when Mr. Ravi returned a Bill — instead of reserving it for the President — seeking exemption from the central mandate of NEET-based medical admissions. The House historically readopted and re-sent the Bill to Lok Bhavan. Thereafter, Mr. Ravi created legislative paralysis by indefinitely delaying his decision on Bills, abusing powers under Article 200. He even argued that if a Governor withholds assent, the Bill is “dead”, a position rejected by the Supreme Court in the Punjab case (2023). He chose to continue in office, even after the Court, in 2025, nullified his inaction on 10 Bills and granted them “deemed assent”. Perhaps, he had become immune to controversies. The Home Ministry once forced him to backtrack after he unilaterally dismissed an arrested Minister. On another occasion, the Court rapped him for refusing to administer oath to a Minister whose conviction had been suspended by the judiciary.

Beyond such constitutional misadventures, Mr. Ravi also never fought shy of endorsing right-leaning ideologies, often appearing to position himself as a political opponent of the ruling DMK. He not only dubbed Mr. Stalin’s ‘Dravidian model’ slogan an “expired ideology” but also characterised it as a “sectarian” thought. His posture helped the DMK further its political campaign, accusing the Narendra Modi government of using Mr. Ravi to undermine the popular will expressed through the House. It is difficult to tell whether his transfer is meant to deprive Mr. Stalin of this political weapon or to end Ms. Banerjee’s comfort with Mr. Bose in an election season. But one thing appears clear: history may not treat Mr. Ravi’s tenure in Tamil Nadu as worthy of emulation in the conduct of Centre-State relations.

Overall Analysis

The editorial critically examines the controversial tenure of R. N. Ravi as Governor of Tamil Nadu, whose transfer to West Bengal marks what the author describes as the closing of a problematic phase in Centre–State relations. The piece begins by noting that the reshuffle of Governors across several States and Union Territories occurs at a politically sensitive time, especially as elections approach. The resignation of C. V. Ananda Bose and Ravi’s transfer bring renewed attention to the functioning and conduct of Governors in India’s constitutional system.

The editorial argues that Ravi’s tenure was marked by repeated confrontations with the elected State government led by M. K. Stalin of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam. The author highlights several instances where the Governor allegedly acted in ways that strained constitutional norms. One recurring controversy involved Ravi walking out of the State Assembly instead of delivering the mandatory Governor’s address required under Article 176 of the Constitution of India. The editorial suggests that such actions undermined established constitutional conventions and worsened tensions between the Governor’s office and the State government.

Another major dispute revolved around legislation related to medical admissions through the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test. The State government attempted to pass a Bill seeking exemption from NEET-based admissions, but the Governor returned the Bill rather than forwarding it to the President. Later, the article argues, he delayed decisions on several Bills, leading to legislative paralysis through the use of powers under Article 200 of the Constitution of India. The editorial notes that the Supreme Court of India rejected the Governor’s interpretation that withholding assent effectively killed a Bill, especially in the context of a ruling in a Punjab Governor–Assembly Assent Case (2023). In 2025, the Court even granted “deemed assent” to several Bills after declaring the Governor’s inaction unconstitutional.

The editorial also criticises Ravi for engaging in ideological commentary that appeared partisan. By openly criticising the “Dravidian model” championed by the DMK government and describing it as outdated or sectarian, he allegedly blurred the line between constitutional neutrality and political opposition. This posture, the article argues, gave the DMK an opportunity to accuse the Narendra Modi government at the Centre of using the Governor’s office as a political instrument against the elected State government.

Finally, the editorial reflects on the political implications of Ravi’s transfer. It speculates whether the move is intended to reduce political tensions in Tamil Nadu or to alter dynamics in West Bengal, where Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee had begun to develop a more workable relationship with Bose. Regardless of the motivation, the author suggests that Ravi’s tenure will likely be remembered as a cautionary example of how the Governor’s office should not function in a federal democracy.

Overall, the editorial uses the episode to raise broader concerns about the role of Governors in India’s federal structure and the need to maintain constitutional restraint and neutrality.

Important Vocabulary (5)

1. Ing lor ious – shameful or deserving of disgrace.
2. Unedifying – something that does not provide moral or intellectual improvement.
3. Dispensation – a government or ruling administration.
4. Sectarian – narrowly focused on a particular group or ideology.
5. Emulation – the effort to imitate or match someone’s actions or achievements.

Conclusion & Tone

The editorial concludes that the tenure of R. N. Ravi in Tamil Nadu represents a troubling phase in the functioning of the Governor’s office, marked by constitutional confrontations and perceived political partisanship. His transfer may close this contentious chapter, but it also raises deeper questions about maintaining neutrality and respect for democratic mandates within India’s federal system.

Tone: Strongly critical, analytical, and cautionary.