The proceedings saw the apex court questioning the Governor’s discretionary powers and emphasizing the constitutional obligations of a Governor when dealing with legislative Bills.
Published Feb 10, 2025 | 4:52 PM ⚊ Updated Feb 10, 2025 | 4:52 PM
Supreme Court hears Tamil Nadu government's case against Governor RN Ravi. (Supplied)
Synopsis: The Supreme Court resumed hearings on Tamil Nadu’s petition against Governor RN Ravi for withholding assent to Bills. The court questioned the legality of the Governor sending re-passed Bills to the President and emphasized the constitutional obligation to act promptly. The Tamil Nadu government argued the Governor’s actions violated the Constitution, with the court reserving judgment after hearing both sides.
The Supreme Court on Monday, 10 February, resumed hearings on the Tamil Nadu government’s petition against Governor RN Ravi for withholding Bills passed by the state legislature.
The proceedings saw the apex court questioning the Governor’s discretionary powers and emphasizing the constitutional obligations of a Governor when dealing with legislative Bills. The arguments were heard by justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan
The Supreme Court raised a key constitutional question: “The Tamil Nadu Assembly re-passed the Bills after they were returned by the Governor. How, then, could the Governor send them to the President? Is this legally permissible?”
The state argued that the Governor acted unconstitutionally by sending re-passed Bills to the President instead of granting assent. The court questioned the legality of this move and reiterated the importance of adhering to constitutional provisions.
The Tamil Nadu government has raised concerns over the Governor’s actions in withholding assent to Bills without providing any explanation.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the Tamil Nadu government, argued that the Governor’s actions violated the Constitution.
“The Governor must act based on the advice of the Council of Ministers. He cannot exercise absolute discretion,” he asserted.
The state claims that the Bills, after being sent to the Governor for assent, were returned without clarification. Assuming they were returned for reconsideration, the Tamil Nadu Assembly re-passed the Bills and sent them back to the Governor. However, the Governor’s counsel argued otherwise.
The timeline outlined by the state includes the Governor returning the Bills on 13 November 2023, the Assembly re-passing them on 18 November 2023, and the Governor forwarding the bills to the President on 28 November 2023, instead of giving assent.
Singhvi referenced the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Punjab case, which stated that Governors must act within a reasonable timeframe and that withholding assent indefinitely is unconstitutional. The state argued that according to the Constitution, the Governor cannot withhold assent indefinitely or send a re-passed Bill to the President.
During the hearing, the Governor’s counsel argued that as per constitutional provisions, the Governor has the authority to approve, withhold, or forward Bills to the President. They contended that the Governor cannot be expected to blindly approve all Bills without scrutiny.
They argued that once a Bill is sent to the President, Article 200 of the Constitution ceases to apply, and Article 201, concerning the President’s decision, takes effect. Attorney General R Venkataramani added, “When the President withholds assent, Article 254 will come into play.”
The Supreme Court, however, questioned this interpretation, asking: “If a Governor repeatedly returns Bills instead of approving them, does that not go against the Constitution’s intent? Can a Governor, after a bill is passed a second time, still send it to the President? Is this being done to avoid giving assent?”
Further pressing for clarity, the Supreme Court questioned: “If the Governor decides to withhold a Bill, what is the reason behind it? Shouldn’t he communicate this to the state government? The Governor either approves a Bill, forwards it to the President, or returns it to the state government for reconsideration. But can he indefinitely withhold Bills to avoid taking a decision?”
The bench also raised concerns about the Governor’s delay in processing Bills, questioning why some were neither returned for reconsideration nor forwarded to the President immediately.
“If a Governor returns a Bill for reconsideration and the state legislature passes it again, the Governor is constitutionally bound to approve it. Is the Governor deliberately stalling bills to circumvent this obligation?,” the court further asked, “Why did the Governor sit on Bills for extended periods, only to later send them to the President instead of taking a clear stand earlier?”
The Supreme Court judges referred to Dr BR Ambedkar’s statements in the Constituent Assembly, emphasizing that the Governor does not have independent discretion but must function within constitutional limits.
“Ambedkar made it clear that the Governor has no individual discretion. The position is not meant to be a power centre but a link between the state and the Center,” the judges noted.
The Supreme Court further raised a critical question: “If the state government passes Bills and the Governor refuses to act on them, what options does the government have? If the President also withholds assent, what happens next?”
The Tamil Nadu government argued that the Governor’s delay in processing Bills was politically motivated and an attack on federalism.
After hearing arguments from both sides, the Supreme Court directed all parties to submit their written arguments within a week. The final verdict on the case has been reserved. The case is seen as a crucial constitutional battle that could set a precedent for Governor-state relations across India.
(Edited by Sumavarsha Kandula with inputs from Subash Chandra Bose)
