His current tenure as the governor of Tamil Nadu has repeatedly been criticized as being dictatorial by M. K. Stalin, the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu.[3] His reluctance to fulfill his gubernatorial duties punctually prompted the assembly of Tamil Nadu to pass a resolution urging the government of India to specify time limits for state governors to give assent to bills.[4]
Early life and education
Ravi was born in Patna, Bihar in a Bhumihar family and completed his master's in physics in 1974.[1] After a brief stint in journalism, he joined the Indian Police Service in 1976 and was allotted to Kerala Cadre, where he served for over a decade.[5]
During his tenure in the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Ravi led several anti-corruption crusades against organized criminal gangs, including mining mafias. While serving in the Intelligence Bureau, Ravi was largely involved in theatres of insurgency and violence in Jammu and Kashmir, the North East, and Maoist-affected regions. After retiring from government service in 2012, Ravi wrote regular columns in national newspapers.[1]
As interlocutor, Ravi had a fallout with the Isak Muivah-led National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN-IM) in 2020 with whom he manoeuvred the signing of the 2015 Framework Agreement after he allegedly misinterpreted the agreement and tried to manipulate it. Subsequently, the NSCN (IM) sought to have him removed as interlocutor.[13] Ravi was also perceived to be targeting the NCSN (IM) group while being soft on its rival Naga National Political Groups comprising seven extremist groups.[14]
After his appointment to Tamil Nadu, the Nationalist Democratic Progressive Party president Chingwang Konyak said the Nagaland government was not happy with the way Ravi functioned and said he interfered in the affairs of a popular government.[14] Journalists of the Kohima Press Club (KPC), boycotted the state farewell programme for Ravi to show their resentment when he was shifted to Tamil Nadu since Ravi refused to interact with the media despite numerous approaches.[15]
The Supreme Court in April 2022 brought into question Ravi's action to refer Rajiv Gandhi assassination convict A. G. Perarivalan's remission plea to the President, saying such a move strikes at the "very roots" of the country's "federal structure."[21][22]
Ravi had rejected approval for 19 bills passed by the assembly from September 2021 to April 2022 including the anti-NEET bill. Ravi has been criticised by political analysts in Tamil Nadu for interfering in the administration of the government.[23] On May 31, 2022, he had 21 bills passed in the Tamil Nadu assembly pending before him.[24][25]
On January 9, 2023, during the governor speech in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, Ravi omitted words such as women empowerment, secularism, self-respect, compassion and portions on B. R. Ambedkar and Dravidian leaders from the speech submitted by the Government to the Governor's office. It is the convention that the Governor should bound to the prepared speech.[32][33] M.K. Stalin, the chief minister of Tamil Nadu, moved a resolution requesting that the Speaker to relax rule 17 of the state assembly rules[34] to only record the speech prepared by the state administration and strike out any passages that the governor inserted or omitted. The Assembly passed a resolution that only the Governor's original speech, prepared by the state government and translated by the Speaker, would be documented. RN Ravi then walked off from the Assembly in the middle of Chief minister's speech on the resolution, before the Indian national anthem, which was sung moments later.[35][36][37] Again in February 12, 2024, Ravi declined to read the entire customary address produced by the State government, except for the introductory parts. He walked off from the assembly once the assembly speaker recited the Tamil rendition of the customary address, without waiting for the playing of the National Anthem.[38] Later in the day, in a Raj Bhavan release, Ravi said that he cannot abide by the Government provided speech since he did not agree with many of its excerpts on "moral and factual reasons", and stated it would be 'constitutional travesty' if he accepted and orated the speech.[39][40]