The bench expressed concerns over tensions between the Governor and state government, hindering governance and public welfare. The court emphasised that the Governor should not obstruct state functioning and sought clarity on bills to refer to the President
Published Feb 04, 2025 | 6:51 PM ⚊ Updated Feb 04, 2025 | 6:51 PM
Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi. (Raj Bhavan/ X)
Synopsis: The Supreme Court is hearing a case filed by Tamil Nadu against Governor RN Ravi, accusing him of delaying bills and blocking Vice-Chancellor appointments. The state argues the Governor’s actions are unconstitutional, disrupting governance and university functioning. The court expressed concerns over the impasse, seeking clarity on the Governor’s role. The case will continue with further arguments next week.
The Supreme Court is hearing a case where Tamil Nadu accuses Governor RN Ravi of violating constitutional norms by withholding assent to bills and delaying Vice-Chancellor appointments. The state argues this disrupts governance and breaches precedents, with the court questioning the Governor’s actions and seeking clarity on his constitutional duties.
The case is being heard by a bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan.
Representing the Union Government, Attorney General R Venkataramani stated that all bills requiring the Governor’s assent had already been addressed, with no bills currently pending for approval.
He further argued that the Supreme Court had not issued a notice regarding the appointment of Vice-Chancellors and noted that the University Grants Commission (UGC) had not been included as a party in the case, making it difficult to offer a detailed response.
The bench raised concerns about the ongoing tensions between the Governor and the state government, noting that the dispute was hampering governance and affecting the welfare of the people of Tamil Nadu.
The court emphasised that the Governor should not obstruct the functioning of the state government and sought clarity on which bills the Governor should refer to the President of India.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Tamil Nadu, argued that once a bill is passed by the state assembly and sent to the Governor, the Governor can return it once for reconsideration.
However, if the legislature passes the bill again, the Governor is constitutionally bound to grant assent. Rohatgi highlighted that between 13 January, 2020, and April 2023, the state had sent 12 bills to the Governor, of which only two had been forwarded to the President of India for a final decision.
The bench questioned whether the Governor had deliberately delayed forwarding the remaining 10 bills and remarked that such an action would be unacceptable.
Tamil Nadu also accused the Governor of unconstitutionally refusing to approve the appointment of Vice-Chancellors in state universities, a move that has caused significant disruption to the functioning of academic institutions.
The state argued that such actions were in violation of constitutional provisions and undermined the role of the Governor in a democratic system.
The Tamil Nadu government further stated that Governors are bound by the Constitution and must act in accordance with the advice of the Council of Ministers.
They also pointed to a specific incident where the Governor refused to administer the oath of office to a minister, despite the Supreme Court’s notice condemning the delay.
The bench asked what remedial measures the judiciary could take if the Governor had already forwarded the bills to the President.
Tamil Nadu responded that while the final decision on such bills lies with the Union Government, the Governor must still act in accordance with Article 200 of the Constitution, which outlines his responsibilities in relation to state legislation.
Rohatgi emphasised that under Article 200, the Governor does not have the authority to withhold assent to a bill indefinitely. He urged the court to issue a directive for the Governor to act in compliance with the Constitution.
The bench also raised a query about the scenario in which the Governor believed a bill was flawed or unsuitable. Rohatgi countered that in such cases, the Governor does not have the discretion to withhold assent and must approve the bill once it has been reconsidered and passed again by the legislature.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Singhvi, also representing Tamil Nadu, argued that the Governor’s refusal to approve Vice-Chancellor appointments had severely affected university administration, disrupting the academic and administrative functions of institutions.
Singhvi pointed out that the Governor’s delay in decision-making on various bills violated constitutional principles and undermined democratic governance.
Senior Advocate P Wilson, appearing for the state, criticised the Governor’s actions as part of a wider pattern of obstruction by Governors in various states, particularly in Tamil Nadu.
He cited an incident where the Governor dismissed a minister without consulting the Chief Minister and subsequently informed the media before officially notifying the state government.
Wilson argued that this behaviour was unconstitutional and an attempt to bypass the authority of the elected government.
The bench adjourned the hearing until Thursday, 6 February, when the arguments from the Union Government’s Attorney General and Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi will be heard.
The court also instructed the Union Government to clarify the basis on which the Governor was making decisions, and urged the Governor to consult with the Tamil Nadu government and act in accordance with the Constitution before the next hearing.
(Edited by Ananya Rao with inputs from Subash)
