E-Paper
TN row: SC says business of governance must go on
the court took up a plea filed by the TN government against a stalemate over 10 bills that governor RN Ravi sent to the President after state assembly had re-enacted them in a special session last month
The business of governance must go on, the Supreme Court said on Wednesday, adding a channel of communication should always remain open between a state governor and the chief minister for resolving deadlocks over pending bills.
As the court took up a plea filed by the Tamil Nadu government against a stalemate over 10 bills that governor RN Ravi sent to the President after the state assembly had re-enacted them in a special session last month, it observed that the impasse over not only the bills but also over other issues of governance may get resolved if the two constitutional authorities sit across the table for a conversation.
“Let there be a breaking of a deadlock apart from this matter. Let them meet. If there is some way out, the fact that bills have been sent can always be resolved...There must be some channel open between the CM and the governor,” a bench led by Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud said.
The bench, which also comprised justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, added: “Let them start talking to each other. After all, the business of government has to go on.”
The court’s observations came after senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and P Wilson, representing the Tamil Nadu government, informed the bench that the CM has received a letter on Tuesday from Ravi, inviting him to tea.
While CM MK Stalin has responded by expressing his willingness to meet the governor, the senior lawyers contended that the apex court will have to settle the constitutional issue as to whether the governor can refer a bill to the President after withholding his assent and despite a re-enactment by the state legislature.
“Neither the tea nor any stiffer beverage or cakes will solve this issue. It’s a purely constitutional matter. Let this matter be called out in January and be heard,” Singhvi argued.
Wilson, on his part, said that though Ravi’s invitation was dated December 1, it was given to them only a day ago. “Perhaps, because the court was going to hear this case today,” he added.
At this point, the bench told attorney general R Venkataramani, who appeared for the governor, that Ravi’s letter had in fact mentioned that his invitation to the CM followed the court’s suggestion on December 1.
“Why does the governor have to say that the Supreme Court has asked? You have to do this on your own. This is not a one-off issue. There must be some channel open between the CM and the governor. At least let them start talking to each other. We will resolve the controversy if we have to,” the bench told Venkataramani.
The A-G said that he concurred with the court’s view, adding a conversation could resolve several issues. Venkataramani pointed out that he had also advised the West Bengal governor to meet the CM there when certain issues cropped up and the two had a fruitful conversation.
While the court said that it would defer the hearing to the third week of January, Singhvi requested the bench to indicate by some way that the bills sent to the President should not be acted upon. “Let us not have precipitation that when we come back in January, the President has already rejected or passed some bills. Let a status quo be maintained,” the senior counsel argued.
The bench, however, replied that it cannot injunct the highest constitutional authority. “We don’t want to injunct the President of India. It doesn’t look good. If the bills have already gone to him, we can’t ask him...” it told Singhvi.
At the same time, it addressed Venkataramani: “Please, look into it...in the spirit that we are trying to find a way out.”
The bench’s comments highlight a long-running standoff between Raj Bhavans and elected governments in several states. In the last few months, Punjab, Telangana, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have approached the Supreme Court seeking directives to their respective governors. These proceedings have prompted the top court to issue judgments and orders mapping out the powers and corresponding duties of governors with regard to the bills sent for their assent.
During the last hearing of this case on December 1, the court observed that governors cannot “kill bills” passed by state legislatures by first withholding assent for long and then referring them for presidential nod.
Expressing displeasure at Ravi for sending 10 bills to the President after the state assembly re-enacted them in a special session last month, the bench observed on the day that the governor had no option but to sign off on the bills after the assembly cleared the proposed legislation and sent them back for Ravi’s approval.
Referring to Article 200 of the Constitution, which deals with the power and role of the governor when a bill is submitted, the court on December 1 emphasised that Ravi could not sit over the bills indefinitely and if he had to refer them to the President, he ought to have done it before informing the assembly that he was withholding his assent.
The DMK government had approached the top court on October 31 against Ravi’s inaction in clearing bills and files, contending that the situation caused a “constitutional deadlock”. It urged the court to specify timelines for the governor to act.
Stalin’s government accused Ravi of acting like a “political rival” rather than a constitutional statesman by “inexplicably delaying or even failing to consider and assent to the bills passed by the legislature”.
