SC slams TN guv for ‘impasse’ over assent
The court was referring to the proviso under Article 200 of the Constitution that deals with governor’s assent to state bills.
The Supreme Court on Friday questioned Tamil Nadu governor RN Ravi’s handling of state bills, criticising him for creating an “impasse” by withholding assent and subsequently referring them to the President -- an approach that the bench suggested could render pertinent constitutional provisions “otiose”.
Examining the constitutional contours of a governor’s authority in light of the Tamil Nadu government’s challenge, a bench, comprising justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, grilled the attorney general (AG) on whether a governor, after withholding assent, could later choose to reserve the bill for the President’s consideration. The bench pointedly questioned AG R Venkataramani, who appeared for Ravi’s office, whether this interpretation would effectively negate the procedural safeguards outlined in the Constitution.
The court was referring to the proviso under Article 200 of the Constitution that deals with governor’s assent to state bills. The proviso to Article 200 states that if the governor returns a bill to the state legislature for reconsideration and the legislature passes it again, with or without amendments, the governor must give assent to the bill. By sitting on a bill indefinitely, this provision can be rendered ineffective, crippling the state legislature’s lawmaking power.
“You have created the impasse; you have to clear it. There cannot be a deadlock,” the bench told AG, stressing the governor’s duty to either grant assent, return the bill for reconsideration, or reserve it for the President, but not to indefinitely withhold it.
The Tamil Nadu government had argued that the Governor’s inaction on crucial state legislation was unconstitutional, particularly when some bills had been pending for years.
The AG, defending the governor, contended that once a bill was withheld, it ceased to exist and did not need to follow the procedure laid down in the first proviso to Article 200. He also justified the governor’s actions by pointing to concerns of repugnance between state laws and central legislation.
However, the bench questioned whether this interpretation was constitutionally sustainable. “If the governor withholds assent, the first proviso immediately gets triggered,” observed the bench, pressing the AG to explain whether the governor could later bypass this obligation by sending the bill to the President.
“You are rendering the entire proviso otiose by withholding the assent,” commented the bench, signalling its skepticism toward the AG’s stance that when a bill is perceived to be repugnant, the governor may directly refer it to the President without needing to explain his reasoning in detail.
The court further questioned whether the governor could indefinitely withhold bills passed by the state assembly based on his perception that they were repugnant to central laws, without formally communicating his opinion to the legislature. According to the bench, if repugnancy was the reason for withholding assent, the issue needed to be addressed rather than leading to an indefinite stalemate.
The discussion also touched upon the Presidential action. Noting that some bills had been pending for two years before the President, the bench asked: “What is expected from the President once assent is withheld? When will the President respond?” The AG clarified that there was no delay on the part of the President and that the President had only acted on one such bill in February 2024, declining to grant assent.
With the bench asserting that the interpretation of Article 200 was central to resolving the dispute, the hearing is set to continue on Monday, with further scrutiny of the governor’s discretionary powers and the constitutional framework governing state legislation.
The court is currently hearing two petitions filed by the Tamil Nadu government challenging the governor’s decision to withhold assent and, in some instances, refer bills to the President years after their enactment.
The court’s crucial adjudication comes at a time when Raj Bhavans in several non-BJP ruled states are seen as having taken an adversarial approach with the elected governments . Many of these instances from Punjab, Telangana, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have seen interventions by the Supreme Court, urging governors to expedite their decision-making process while also admonishing them in some instances for apparent attempts to undermine the primacy of democratically elected governments.
Senior advocates Rakesh Dwivedi, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Mukul Rohatgi and P Wilson are representing the Tamil Nadu government, challenging the governor’s actions.
On Thursday, the court set about defining the constitutional contours of a governor’s authority regarding assent to bills, framing eight key questions while expressing strong disapproval of Ravi’s prolonged delay in acting upon bills passed by the state legislature. The bench observed that the Tamil Nadu governor seems to have devised his “own procedure” in withholding assent to bills referred by the state government, and sought the reasons behind Ravi keeping the bills pending for three years and then referring it to the President.
By framing eight questions, the bench sought to ascertain the extent of a governor’s discretion under Article 200 of the Constitution, which empowers the governor to approve or withhold assent to bills passed by the state legislature. The bench emphasised the need to clarify whether a governor can withhold assent indefinitely, a practice informally termed “pocket veto”, and whether a governor is bound to grant assent once a bill is reconsidered and re-enacted by the legislature. The bench also inquired whether a mere claim of repugnancy of a state law is sufficient justification for withholding assent or if the governor must provide specific reasons.
The Supreme Court’s examination of these issues is expected to clarify the limits of gubernatorial discretion in state legislative matters. The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for Centre-state relations and the role of governors in legislative processes.