SC questions TN Governor Ravi over inordinate delay in giving assent to Bills; says he adopted own procedure

As Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi sat over Bills enacted by the state Assembly for over three years before referring some of them to the President, the Supreme Court on Thursday questioned him for adopting “his own procedure”, saying it did not make any sense to withhold assent to Bills for so long.

Advertisement

"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," a Bench led by Justice JB Pardiwala said.

As attorney General R Venkataramani, who represented the Governor, alleged that the Tamil Nadu Government was attempting to show that the Governor’s office was small and insignificant, the Bench said it did not want to undermine the Governor’s powers and that it was only examining his actions.

"We will not make the Governor as small as the petitioner argued (to be). We are not undermining his powers. Today, we are examining his power to withhold 12 Bills duly passed by the state legislature and send two Bills to the President directly and then say ‘I withhold assent’. You have to tell us what is so gross in the Bills that the Governor took three years to find…,” the Bench told Venkataramani.

The Bench 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.

”When a state Legislative Assembly passes a Bill and sends it to the Governor for assent, and the Governor withholds assent, but the Bill is passed again and resubmitted, does the Governor have the authority to withhold it once more?” read one of the questions framed by the Bench.

"Is the discretion of the Governor to present a Bill to the President limited to specific matters, or does it extend beyond certain prescribed subjects? What is the concept of a pocket veto, and does it find a place within the constitutional framework of India,” read two other questions to be considered by the top court.

The Bench said it would examine what considerations influenced the Governor’s decision to present the bill to the President, instead of granting assent. The Bills, on which assent was withheld, were not sent back to the state Assembly and merely declaring that the assent was being withheld without returning the Bills to the assembly would frustrate Article 200 of the Constitution, it noted.

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.

On behalf of the Tamil Nadu Government, senior advocates Rakesh Dwivedi, Mukul Rohatgi, Abhishek Singhvi assailed the Governor’s actions. Dwivedi said withholding assent simpliciter meant exercising the pocket veto and putting the Bills in cold storage and that it had become a norm in Tamil Nadu. Contending that federalism was the part of the basic structure of the Constitution, Singhvi said the Governor not deciding Bills affected governance.