SC: Governor can’t simply sit on Bills without communicating

Amid the 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.

‘Can’t drag kin in domestic violence cases for not backing victim’

Advertisement

• Family members of a person accused of domestic violence cannot be implicated in criminal cases without specific charges for simply not extending support to the victim, the SC said
• “There may be situations where some of the family members or relatives may turn a blind eye to the violence or harassment perpetrated to the victim, and may not extend any helping hand to the victim, which does not necessarily mean that they are also perpetrators of domestic violence, unless the circumstances clearly indicate their involvement and instigation,” a Bench said

“If the Governor feels that 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 the 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 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.