Ravi returned the Bills days before the Supreme Court heard pleas by states over Governors sitting on legislation enacted by Assemblies.
Readopting the bills, Stalin said it was the duty of a Governor to give assent to Bills passed by an elected House.
Upping the ante in its battle against Governor RN Ravi, the DMK government on Saturday, 18 November, re-introduced and readopted in the state Assembly the 10 Bills he had returned on just two days back, on Thursday.
The move by Ravi — who has been sitting on some of the Bills for months — came just four days ahead of a scheduled Supreme Court hearing on pleas by Opposition-ruled states like Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Punjab over state Governors — appointed by the President on the advice of the Union government — not acting on Bills passed with the requisite majority by the respective Assemblies.
The Tamil Nadu Bills, including one pertaining to the change of chancellorship of the state-run universities, were returned by the Governor without assigning any reasons, merely stating, “I withhold Assent.”
With the Supreme Court scheduled to take up the matter on 20 November, sources in the Assembly told South First that the 10 readopted Bills will be sent to the Raj Bhavan without delay.
The sources said Speaker Appavu is keen that the Bills should reach the Governor’s office before the case in the Supreme Court comes up for hearing.
As soon as the Assembly gathered on Saturday, condolence resolutions were passed on the deaths of freedom fighter and CPI(M) leader Sankariah and others. Chief Minister MK Stalin then moved a resolution to take up for reconsideration to readopt the 10 Bills that were returned by the Governor.
Introducing the Bills, Stalin said that if a “power” that can stop the House from enacting legislation emerges, it will severely hamper democracy and that this was his apprehension.
He said the House takes note that under Article 200 of the Constitution of India, if the above said Bills are passed again and presented to the Governor for assent, he “shall not withhold assent therefrom”.
“This House resolves that under Rule 143 of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly rules the following Bills may be reconsidered by this Assembly,” the resolution moved by Stalin said.
The chief minister also made a stinging attack on Ravi, alleging the Governor was keen to block the government’s initiatives and alleged that non-BJP ruled states were being targeted through Governors, apparently at the behest of the Union government.
He noted that it was the duty of a Governor to give assent to Bills passed by a House that comprised representatives elected by the people.
“He can seek legal or administrative clarification from the government, if required, and the government has to give it,” he said, adding that such clarifications have been given in the past.
“At no instances have such clarifications been not given. In such a situation, him (Governor) not giving assent to the Bills passed by the Assembly due to his whims and fancies and returning them amounts to insulting the people of Tamil Nadu and this House,” Stalin said.
Leaving the resolution to the floor, Speaker Appavu called on MLAs to speak on the resolution. The Congress, AIADMK, MDMK, VCK, CPI, PMK, CPI(M), and BJP members were allowed to speak.
The Bill was welcomed by the parties in the DMK-led coalition, and VCK MLA Sinthanai Selvan said that the reason the Governor does not put any adverse remarks on the Bill itself makes it clear that he has no reasons to reject them.
The PMK floor leader GK Mani said that his party welcomed the readoption of the Bills and stated that the Governor should cooperate with the state government.
However, the move was opposed by the BJP, and its MLAs walked out of the special session after party leader Nainar Nagendran said that the readoption of the Bills was against the Constitution.
On behalf of AIADMK, Opposition leader Edappadi Palaniswami sought to know the need to convene a special session of the Assembly to readopt the Bills when a case against the Governor is pending in the Supreme Court.
“The government could have waited till the final verdict of the case, which would be in favor of Tamil Nadu,” Palaniswami said.
However, Minister Durai Murugan interrupted the Opposition leader and said: “The Governor returned the Bills only after the state government approached the Supreme Court. When the case is coming for the next hearing, the Governor will submit to the court that there are no Bills pending with him by citing the returned Bills. This government will not give such a chance to the Governor.”
Palaniswami also pointed out that his party’s supremo, J Jayalalithaa, while the chief minister, adopted a Bill of the same nature which makes the chief minister of the state the chancellor of universities, but the DMK had then opposed it.
Palaniswami also said that his party favours the Bill.
The AIADMK leader charged that the DMK government was trying to change the name of Jayalalithaa Fishery University and said that his party would walk out before voting.
However Fisheries Minister Anitha Radhakrishnan told the floor that there was no such proposal to change the name of the university.
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear on Monday, 20 November, the case by Tamil Nadu — as well as Kerala and Punjab — against Governors refusing to clear Bills passed by the state Assembly.
In its plea, the state government has said that Governor Ravi has not taken any action on Bills sent to him from 2020 to 2023, as well as government’s decisions on the appointment of the chairman and the members of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC), sanction for the prosecution of public servants, and the grant of remission to convicts.
Pointing to the sanction pending on the appointment of the chairman and members of the TNPSC, the Tamil Nadu government, in its petition, submitted that due to this the commission’s functions were stalled.
“The Governor is creating an adversarial attitude by not cooperating with the state administration,” added the petition.
The petition stated that the Governor, who the Union Government appointed in line with the Constitution, had positioned himself as a political rival to the legitimately elected state government.
Describing as a matter of “serious concern” the Tamil Nadu Governor sitting on Bills passed by the Assembly, the court on 10 November, issued notice to the Union government to make clear its position on the inaction.
Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, heading a bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, also requested the assistance of Attorney General R Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta in the matter. It then posted the case for 20 November.
Referring to the tabulated statements of the Bills passed by the state Assembly pending with the Governor since January 2020 and other state government decisions requiring his sanction, the bench said, “We are of the view that it is a matter of serious concern.”
The court said that Article 200 of the Constitution requires the Bill passed by the state Assembly should be presented to the Governor, who can give assent or withhold and send it back for reconsideration, or reserve and send it to the President of India for consideration.
The Supreme Court reiterated this point at an earlier hearing on a petition filed by Punjab about the Governor delaying return files, by making the oral observation that the trend of Governors acting on pending Bills only after the states approached the court should stop.
Kerala has also approached the apex court seeking similar relief on pending Bills. In the past, the Telangana Governor had acted on the Bills soon after the government moved the Supreme Court.
May 01, 2024
May 01, 2024
May 01, 2024
May 01, 2024
May 01, 2024
Apr 30, 2024
