Governor can’t sit on Bills without communicating: Supreme Court

Amid ongoing tussle between Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi and the DMK Government over the former sitting over Bills passed by the state Assembly, the Supreme Court on Friday said the Governor couldn’t simply sit over Bills based on perception of repugnancy with a Central law, without communicating his opinion.

“If the Governor feels the Bills are repugnant (to a Central law), shouldn’t he tell the (state) government immediately? How is the Government expected to know what is in the mind of the Governor?” a Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan asked Attorney General R Venkataramani, who represented the Governor.

“If repugnancy is something that troubled the Governor, then the Governor should have immediately brought it to the notice of the government, which (read Assembly) could have reconsidered the said Bills.”

“If you (Governor) are of the view that this Bill suffers from repugnancy to the Central law, then you have to give a message. The Governor has to say something like I am referring this Bill for the consideration of the President. Otherwise, there will be an impasse. How do you expect the state government to overcome repugnancy? If you create the impasse, you have to clear the impasse. But, who will clear the impasse? There cannot be an absolute deadlock,” the Bench said.

Venkataramani said in seven of the Bills, the assent was withheld by the President and the state government was informed about the decision. “Withholding the assent means declining the assent,” the AG said, adding when the President decided to withhold the assent, as was communicated by the President in these cases; it meant the Bills were repugnant.

It might not be a correct interpretation of law as accepting the argument would render the provisions under Article 200 and 201 as otiose, said the Bench which on Thursday framed eight questions, including one on the concept of ‘pocket veto’ of governors, for adjudication on the dispute between the Tamil Nadu Government and the Governor over withholding of assent to Bills.

As Venkataramani sought time till February 10 to argue the matter, the Bench deferred the matter and indicated that it would reserve its verdict on the next date of hearing.

The Supreme Court had on Thursday questioned him for adopting “his own procedure”, saying it did not make any sense to withhold assent to Bills for so long.

"He (Governor) seems to have adopted his own procedure. He says, 'I withhold assent, but I will not ask you to reconsider the bill'. It does not make any sense to keep withholding assent and not to send it to the legislature thereby frustrating the provision of Article 200,” the Bench had said.

According to Article 200, the Governor can either give his assent to a Bill passed by the state legislature or withhold his assent or can reserve the Bill for the consideration of the President. The Governor may, as soon as possible after the presentation of the Bill to him for assent, return the Bill if it is not a Money Bill for reconsideration of the Bill or any specified provisions thereof. If the Bill is passed again by the state legislature with or without amendment and presented to him for assent, the Governor shall not withhold his assent.

The Tamil Nadu Government moved the top court in 2023 alleging delay by Ravi in granting assent to Bills.

Tensions between Ravi and the MK Stalin government escalated when the state assembly re-adopted 10 Bills returned by him.

On December 13, 2023, observing the business of governance must go on, the top court had said it did not want to restrain the President of India from acting on the Bills re-adopted by the Tamil Nadu Assembly and forwarded to her by Governor Ravi for consideration.

It noted the submissions of the counsel for the state government and the attorney general that Chief Minister M K Stalin and Governor Ravi had agreed to meet, as asked by the apex court, and resolve the impasse over the Bills not getting gubernatorial assent after its passage by the state legislature.

The Governor couldn't refer Bills passed by the legislature and re-adopted by it for presidential assent, and asked the Tamil Nadu Governor to hold a meeting with the chief minister in an effort to end the impasse over 10 such pending Bills, it had said.