SC slams TN governor Ravi for ‘own procedure’ to delay bills
The Supreme Court questioned Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi's delay in assenting to bills, emphasizing the need to clarify gubernatorial discretion under Article 200.
The Supreme Court on Thursday set about defining the constitutional contours of a governor’s authority regarding assent to bills, framing eight key questions while expressing strong disapproval of Tamil Nadu governor RN Ravi’s prolonged delay in acting upon bills passed by the state legislature.
A bench of justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan 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.
“It also does not make sense to keep withholding assent and not send to the legislature, thereby frustrating the last proviso of Article 200 (which deals with the Governor’s assent to state bills)…He seems to have adopted his own procedure. He rendered the second part of the proviso redundant by his actions,” the bench told attorney general R Venkataramani, who appeared for Ravi’s office.
The second part of 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.
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 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 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.
The court’s crucial adjudication comes at a time when Raj Bhavans in several non-BJP ruled states are seen to be in confrontation with the elected governments all too often. 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.
Questions framed by the courtAt the outset of the hearing, the bench outlined the key constitutional issues that need determination. One question posed by the court was whether a governor has the authority to withhold assent for a second time after a state legislative assembly passes a bill again following initial withholding. Another critical issue raised was whether the governor’s discretion to present a bill to the President is confined to specific matters prescribed by the Constitution or extends beyond those subjects. The court also asked what considerations should influence a governor’s decision to refer a bill to the President rather than granting assent.
Further, the court sought to examine whether the concept of “pocket veto” -- whereby a Governor withholds assent indefinitely -- has any constitutional validity in India. Additionally, the bench questioned how Article 200 should be interpreted, particularly in cases where a bill returned for reconsideration is passed again by the legislature. The court also asked what factors influenced the Tamil Nadu governor’s decision to keep the bills pending for three years before referring only some of them to the President. Finally, the bench inquired whether a mere claim of repugnancy is sufficient justification for withholding assent or if the governor must provide specific reasons.
SC rebukes TN governor for delayDuring the proceedings, the bench berated Ravi for sitting on bills passed by the Tamil Nadu legislative assembly for over three years before referring only two of them to the President while withholding assent to others without explanation.
The bench questioned AG Venkataramani on the governor’s reasoning: “What is so gross in the bills that took the Governor three years to decide?” The court also pointed out that the governor’s actions appeared inconsistent, as he referred only two bills to the President while withholding others.
In defence of Ravi, Venkataramani contended that the bills in question sought to remove the governor as the Chancellor of state universities, a matter of national importance requiring scrutiny.
However, the bench stated that it was not examining the history of the bills but rather the governor’s power to withhold assent indefinitely and refer bills to the President without justification. “You have to tell us what was so gross in these bills that he did so,” Justice Pardiwala reiterated.
When the AG suggested that a mere claim of repugnancy suffices to withhold assent and that the governor is not required to write a detailed explanation, the bench retorted: “In the name of repugnancy, can the bills be withheld? The governor had the option to refer all bills to the President, but only two were sent. Why?”
Venkataramani further argued that the 10 bills were not sent back to the state government for reconsideration, as only in such a scenario would the governor be required to state reasons. Instead, the governor simply withheld assent.
The court, however, asked: “How long is he entitled to withhold consent? You have to show some contemporaneous record to show what weighed in his mind, who guided him in identifying the lacuna or loopholes the Governor found.” The AG is expected to continue submissions on Friday.
Senior advocates Rakesh Dwivedi, AM Singhvi, Mukul Rohatgi and P Wilson, representing the Tamil Nadu government, presented arguments challenging the governor’s actions.
Rohatgi asserted that once a state legislature re-enacts a bill that was withheld, the governor is constitutionally bound to grant assent. Singhvi emphasised that withholding assent indefinitely undermines legislative authority, arguing that the governor must communicate his decision “as soon as possible”. Wilson relied on the 2023 Punjab Governor case, in which the Supreme Court stated that the Constitution does not provide for a perpetual veto. This verdict underlined that “in a parliamentary form of democracy, real power vests in the elected representatives of the people” while the governor, as an appointee of the President, is just a “titular head” of the state.
Recommended Topics