‘Why was governor silent for years?’: Supreme Court on delay in approving Tamil Nadu assembly bills
Tamil Nadu government approached the Supreme Court in 2023 after the governor delayed assent to 12 bills, including one from 2020.
The Supreme Court on Monday questioned Tamil Nadu governor RN Ravi's delay in giving assent to bills passed by the state assembly, asking why he referred the “re-passed” bills to the President.
A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan raised questions with the governor, represented by attorney general R Venkataramani, and reserved its ruling on the matter.
“Why was the governor silent for years? Why did he not make any communication with the government? Then he withholds his assent and reserves the bills for the consideration of the President,” the court said.
It went on to ask, “How could he refer the re-passed bills to the President?”
Venkataramani argued that the Constitution does not contain any explicit provision preventing the Governor from referring the re-passed bill to the President for consideration.
The state government approached the Supreme Court in 2023 after the governor delayed assent to 12 bills, including one from 2020.
After the governor withheld assent to 10 bills on November 13, 2023, the legislative assembly convened a special session on November 18, 2023, to re-enact the same bills.
On November 28, the governor reserved certain bills for the President's consideration.
The apex court on Monday framed several additional questions for resolving the disputes and sought assistance on the interpretation of Article 200 of the Constitution, which addresses the Governor's power to assent to bills, withhold assent, and reserve them for the President's consideration.
The bench also examined Article 201, which outlines the President's authority when bills are reserved for his consideration by the Governor, and Article 111, which governs the President's power to assent to bills passed by Parliament.
Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, representing the Tamil Nadu government, contended that any alternate interpretation of Article 200 and its provisions would amount to a regression to the “imperial era.”
“The court has to adopt a constitutional approach and more of an organic approach. The state functions in its own domain through plenary powers and there is supremacy of Parliamentary democracy. These are basic features of the Constitution as interpreted by this court in numerous judgments post 1973 verdict in Kesavananda Bharati case,” said Dwivedi.
He said that on November 13, 2023, the governor returned the bills to the legislative assembly with a brief note withholding his assent, providing no further explanation.
With PTI inputs
Recommended Topics