Supreme Court Questions Tamil Nadu Governor’s Delay in Assenting to Bills
The Supreme Court on Thursday raised concerns over the prolonged delays by Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi in granting assent to bills passed by the state legislative assembly, suggesting that he appears to have devised his own process for handling legislative matters.
A bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan observed, “The Governor seems to have adopted his own procedure. He states, ‘I withhold assent, but I won’t ask for reconsideration of the bill.’ This approach undermines the intent of Article 200 of the Constitution.”
Key Issues Highlighted by the Bench
The court framed several crucial questions to address the conflict between the state government and the Governor regarding the withholding of assent.
- Authority to Withhold Assent Again: Can the Governor withhold assent a second time if the state assembly resubmits a bill after it is passed again?
- Governor’s Discretion: Is the Governor’s discretion to forward a bill to the President confined to specific subjects, or can it extend beyond prescribed matters?
- Concept of Pocket Veto: Does the idea of a pocket veto, where assent is indefinitely withheld, align with India’s constitutional framework?
The bench expressed concern that bills withheld by the Governor were not returned to the legislature for reconsideration, thereby obstructing the provisions of Article 200.
Article 200 and Governor’s Role
Article 200 of the Constitution grants Governors the power to approve, withhold, or return bills to the legislature for reconsideration. The Governor may also forward a bill to the President for approval. However, the court noted that the Tamil Nadu Governor delayed his decisions on certain bills for over three years, creating significant governance challenges.
The court questioned Attorney General R. Venkataramani, representing the Governor, about the rationale behind sitting on the bills for such an extended period without taking action.
Scrutiny of Governor’s Actions
“We are not undermining the Governor’s powers,” the bench clarified. “However, we are examining why he withheld assent on 12 bills and referred two directly to the President. What was so significant or gross in these bills that warranted such action?”
The Attorney General argued that the state government’s allegations portrayed the Governor’s role as insignificant. However, the bench pressed for evidence, asking, “What were the specific issues in the bills that led to such a lengthy delay?”
The bench referred to a previous Supreme Court judgment in a case from Punjab, which ruled that Governors could not veto bills by indefinitely withholding assent.
State Government’s Allegations and Concerns
The Tamil Nadu government, represented by senior advocates including Rakesh Dwivedi, Mukul Rohatgi, and Abhishek Singhvi, accused the Governor of acting with malice in both law and fact.
Dwivedi argued that withholding assent without explanation equated to exercising a “pocket veto” and leaving bills in limbo. He highlighted that such delays—sometimes lasting two or three years—had become routine in Tamil Nadu.
Singhvi emphasized the importance of federalism as part of India’s basic constitutional structure. “When the Governor refuses to decide on bills, it disrupts governance and undermines democracy,” he asserted.
Governor’s Concerns and National Importance
The Attorney General countered that one of the contested bills aimed to strip the Governor of his role as the chancellor of state universities, calling it a matter of national importance and contrary to established legal principles. He argued that even a statement of repugnance was sufficient to justify withholding assent.
The bench, however, insisted on concrete evidence, stating, “Show us the repugnancy. Can bills be withheld indefinitely in the name of repugnancy?”
Constitutional Interpretation Under Scrutiny
The Supreme Court will further examine whether the Governor is obligated to grant assent to a bill after it is reconsidered and passed again by the legislature.
The Tamil Nadu government has filed two petitions highlighting the ongoing standoff between the state assembly and the Governor over the latter’s refusal to assent to bills, leading to significant governance challenges.
The hearing is set to resume on February 7, with the Attorney General tasked with providing factual evidence or official records to justify the Governor’s actions.