SC pulls up TN Governor for sending bills to President after withholding assent

Senior advocate AM Singhvi, appearing for the Tamil Nadu government, submitted to the Supreme Court that Governor RN Ravi has sent the 10 re-enacted bills for the President’s assent on November 28.
Supreme Court and TN Governor RN Ravi
Supreme Court and TN Governor RN Ravi
Written by:
Published on

The Supreme Court on Friday, December 1 pulled up Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi for returning 10 bills, that were re-passed by the Assembly, to the President for assent. The court questioned why the Governor referred the bills to the President after withholding his assent initially. The bench also orally remarked that the Governor cannot send bills for the President’s assent after the Assembly House re-enacts them if the Governor had previously withheld them. A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra were hearing a plea filed by the Tamil Nadu government against the Governor for delaying assent to bills.

The Supreme Court had, on November 10, pulled up Ravi for the inordinate delay in giving assent to bills passed by the Assembly, calling it a “matter of serious concern”. The bench, headed by the CJI, had also asked, “What has he been doing for three years?” Following this, Ravi returned all the bills to the Assembly on November 13. The Tamil Nadu government in turn called a special Assembly session on November 18 and passed the bills once again.

On Friday, senior advocate AM Singhvi, appearing for the TN government, submitted to the court that there was a ‘new development’ in the matter, which was that the Governor sent the 10 re-enacted bills for the President’s assent on November 28. Observing that the bills cannot be referred to the President after the Governor exercises his option to withhold assent, CJI Chandrachud said, “As per Article 200 of the Constitution, there are three options to the Governor – he can assent or withhold assent or he can reserve the bill for President. They are all alternatives. In this case, the Governor initially said I withhold assent. Once he withholds assent, there is no question of him then reserving it for the President. He can’t. He has to follow one of the three options – assent, withhold the assent, or refer it to the President. So first and foremost, once he withholds the assent, then he can never say that now I am referring it to the President. Second, once he withholds the assent, he can’t kill the bill right there. He can’t stall the bill there. Once he withholds the assent, the proviso does not give him the fourth option.”

Further, the CJI stated that the Governor should exercise only one of the options provided under Article 200, which lays down the procedure to be followed when a state legislature passes a bill. “Once the Assembly re-passes the bill, after the Governor withholds the assent, then you can’t say you are referring to the President. Because, the last line of the proviso to Article 200 says ‘then shall not withhold the assent’,” the CJI observed.

Read: Governor's powers can't be used to thwart lawmaking: SC

The CJI also said that the Governor and the TN government should come to an agreement without waiting for the court to pass a ruling in the matter. He suggested that the Governor should sit with the Chief Minister and resolve the issue. “I think it would be appropriate if the Governor invites the CM,” he added. The case has been posted for hearing on December 11.

The tussle between the Governor and the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam-led (DMK) state government has been going on ever since his appointment in 2021. After repeated delays in getting assent for bills passed by the Assembly, the TN government had in October approached the apex court seeking an intervention.

It may be noted that Kerala, another non-Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) ruled state, has also been forced to approach the Supreme Court as Governor Arif Mohammed Khan had similarly been delaying assent to bills. On November 29, the Supreme Court pulled up Khan as well for the prolonged delays in assenting to bills. Further, the court emphasised that the power of the Governor cannot be used to pause the state legislature’s lawmaking process. The bench also said that it would consider laying down guidelines regarding when a Governor can send bills to the President.

Read: SC tells Kerala Governor to refer its verdict on Governor's duties and responsibilities

Related Stories

No stories found.
The News Minute
www.thenewsminute.com