The Supreme Court is hearing Tamil Nadu’s case accusing Governor RN Ravi of violating constitutional norms by withholding assent to bills and delaying Vice-Chancellor appointments, disrupting governance
Published Feb 06, 2025 | 7:30 PM ⚊ Updated Feb 06, 2025 | 9:05 PM
Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi.(rajbhavan_tn/ Twitter)
Synopsis: 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 these actions disrupt governance and breach precedents. The bench questioned why the Governor took over three years to withhold assent and refer bills to the President, seeking clarity on his constitutional duties.
On Thursday, 6 February, the Supreme Court raised concerns over the Tamil Nadu Governor’s delay in withholding assent to bills passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly.
The Supreme Court is currently hearing a case in which Tamil Nadu accuses Governor RN Ravi of violating constitutional norms by withholding assent to bills and delaying Vice-Chancellor appointments.
The state argues that these actions disrupt governance and violate established precedents. The court has raised questions regarding the Governor’s conduct and is seeking clarification on his constitutional duties.
A bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan questioned why the Governor had sat on the bills for over three years before declaring that he would withhold assent and refer some of them to the President.
The court asked Attorney General R Venkataramani why the Governor took so long to send the bills to the President, citing repugnancy. Justice Pardiwala questioned the Governor’s actions, asking, “What is so gross in the bills that it took three years to find?”
The bench also pointed out that the Governor only referred two bills to the President after the Tamil Nadu Assembly re-enacted them.
In response, Attorney General Venkataramani argued that the Governor did not send the bills back to the Assembly for reconsideration but merely declared that he was withholding assent.
However, Justice Pardiwala remarked that simply withholding assent without returning the bills to the Assembly undermines Article 200 of the Constitution, which outlines the Governor’s duties regarding legislative bills.
“He says, ‘I withhold assent, but I will not ask you to reconsider the bill.’ It does not make sense to keep withholding assent and not send it to the legislature, thereby frustrating the proviso of Article 200,” Justice Pardiwala stated, criticising the Governor’s approach.
The court further emphasised that the Governor cannot withhold assent merely by citing repugnancy.
Justice Pardiwala insisted that the Attorney General provide clear evidence explaining why the Governor withheld assent, asking for factual records from the Governor’s office to clarify what was considered before the decision was made.
The bench also noted that the Governor’s decision came shortly after a Supreme Court ruling in the Punjab Governor’s case, which clarified that Governors cannot veto bills by sitting on them indefinitely.
“The judgment came three days prior to his decision to withhold,” Justice Pardiwala remarked.
The bench highlighted that the state had alleged both legal and factual malice on the part of the Governor. The Attorney General argued that the bills, which sought to remove the Governor as Chancellor of state universities, were of national importance.
However, the bench made it clear that it was not focusing on the history of the bills, but rather on the Governor’s constitutional power to withhold assent to 12 bills passed by the state legislature.
In his comments, Justice Pardiwala questioned the delay, asking, “How long can such bills be held up?” He reiterated that the case centered on the interpretation of Article 200 of the Constitution and the Governor’s role in withholding assent.
Attorney General R Venkataramani began his submissions this afternoon, on 6 February and is expected to continue his arguments during tomorrow morning’s hearing.
(Edited by Ananya Rao)
