‘Adopted own procedure’: SC questions TN Governor’s delay over assent to Bills
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday raised serious concerns over the prolonged delay by Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi in granting assent to Bills passed by the state legislative assembly. The court observed that the Governor appeared to have “adopted his own procedure” and framed key constitutional questions on the matter.
A bench comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan noted that the Governor had neither assented to nor returned the Bills for reconsideration, effectively stalling the legislative process. “He seems to have adopted his own procedure. He says, ‘I withhold assent, but I will not ask you to reconsider the Bill.’ It does not make sense to keep withholding assent and not send it to the legislature, thereby frustrating the provision of Article 200,” the bench remarked.
The court framed several questions to examine the Governor’s authority in withholding assent and referring Bills to the President. One of the primary issues was whether a Governor could withhold assent again after a Bill was passed a second time by the legislature.
The bench also questioned the scope of the Governor’s discretion in referring a Bill to the President. “Is the discretion of the Governor to present a Bill to the President limited to specific matters, or does it extend beyond certain prescribed subjects?” it asked.
Another significant query was regarding the concept of a “pocket veto” and whether it had any constitutional basis in India. The court noted that merely withholding assent without returning the Bills effectively placed them in limbo.
The bench observed that the Governor took over three years before declaring that he was withholding assent on some Bills while referring others to the President. Addressing Attorney General R Venkataramani, who was representing the Governor, the court asked why the Bills were not acted upon for such a prolonged period.
“We will not make the Governor as small as the petitioner argued. We are not undermining his powers. Today, we are examining his power to withhold 12 Bills duly passed by the state legislature and send two Bills to the President directly and then say, ‘I withhold assent.’ You have to tell us what was so gross in the Bills that he did so,” the bench stated.
The court further pressed the Attorney General to provide specific reasons for the Governor’s decision. “What is something so gross in the Bills which the Governor took three years to find out?” it asked.
Under Article 200 of the Constitution, the Governor has the authority to either approve a Bill, return it for reconsideration, withhold assent, or refer it to the President. The bench emphasised that merely declaring assent was being withheld without returning the Bills to the legislature undermined the constitutional provision.
The court referenced a previous judgement involving the Punjab Governor, which held that a Governor could not indefinitely delay action on Bills passed by the legislature. It observed that the Tamil Nadu Governor had taken action only after this verdict.
The Tamil Nadu government, represented by senior advocates including Rakesh Dwivedi, Mukul Rohatgi, and Abhishek Manu Singhvi, argued that the Governor’s actions were causing administrative paralysis.
Dwivedi contended that “withholding assent simpliciter means exercising the pocket veto and putting the Bills in cold storage,” adding that such delays had become a norm in Tamil Nadu. Singhvi emphasised that federalism was a part of the basic structure of the Constitution and warned against actions that undermined democracy. “When the Governor is not deciding the Bills, it is affecting governance,” he said.
One of the contentious Bills, according to the law officer representing the Governor, sought to strip the Governor of his role as the chancellor of state universities. He argued that this raised concerns of national importance and legal repugnance.
However, the court remained unconvinced by the vague reasoning. “You need to show us the repugnancy. In the name of repugnancy, can the Bills be withheld?” the bench questioned.
The Supreme Court has scheduled the next hearing for February 7 and has asked the Attorney General to present documentary evidence justifying the Governor’s decisions. “Either you show us some original files or some other documents, some contemporaneous record available with the office of the Governor as to what was looked into, what was discussed, what were the lacunae,” the court directed.
The bench will also deliberate on the interpretation of Article 200, particularly whether a Governor is bound to grant assent once a Bill is passed again after being returned for reconsideration.
The Tamil Nadu government has filed two petitions highlighting the ongoing conflict between the state assembly and the Governor over the delay in assenting to Bills.
