Governor Can't 'Pocket-Veto' Bills, Anti-Federal To Return Bills Without Giving Reasons: Tamil Nadu Govt To Supreme Court

The Supreme Court today(January 6) continued hearing two writ petitions filed by the State of Tamil Nadu against Governor Dr. RN Ravi for withholding assent for 12 bills passed by the State assembly. Since yesterday, a bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan has been hearing Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi,Abhishek Manu Singhvi and P Wilson arguing that the Governor's action is unconstitutional and violation of Article 200. To summarise, they have argued that as per Article 200, the Governor has three options, namely: to assent, to reserve the Bill to send it to the President and to withhold the assent. Reference has been made to the Punjab judgment, passed by a three-judge bench also comprising Justice Pardiwala, wherein it was held that withholding the assent as per the first proviso of Article 200 means sending it back to the State legislature. That is, the Governor cannot exercise 'pocket veto'. Today, the hearing began with Justice Pardiwala informing the lawyers about the eight questions framed by the Court :1. When the legislative assembly has passed a Bill and presented it to the Governor for assent, but the Governor withholds his assent thereto, and as a result therefore, the legislative assembly passes the Bill again, and presents it to Governor, will it be open for him to reserve the Bill for the consideration of President, more particularly when he did not reserve it for the President when it was present at first instance.2. Whether the discretion of Governor in reserving a Bill for the President is exercisable upon any Bill or is it limited to certain specified categories, particularly where the subject-matter appears to be beyond the competence of the State legislature or repugnant to a Central law. 3. What considerations weighed with the Governor when he decided to reserve the Bill for consideration by the President?4. What is the concept of pocket veto?5. What is the effect of the expression 'shall declare' used in the substantive part of Article 200? Can a time period be read in Article 200 in which it is expected for the Governor to pass a declaration? 6. How is Article 200 construed in two scenarios- 6.1 Bill is presented for assent and upon consideration, the Governor returns the Bill together with message requesting to reconsider certain aspects of Bill in terms of first proviso to Article 200 and 6.2 a Bill is presented but upon consideration, the Governor declares he withholds assent and therefore, the legislature passes the Bill and presents it again to the Governor for assent-whether the Governor bound to give assent in both scenarios?7. When the President directs Governor to return the Bill and the Bill is passed and presented again to the President, in what matter President to act?8. Is it mandatorily required to assent to the Bill when it is placed before him for reconsideration or is there a constitutional scheme in Article 201 and if yes, how is the silence to be construed? As for questions seven and eight, all lawyers maintained that it is not necessary to answer that if the Court holds that the reference to the President by the Governor is bad in law and should be set aside.Pocket vetoOn whether the Governor can withhold the assent and not refer it back to the State legislature, Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi argued that the power to withhold simpliciter is not available under Article 200. He termed it as putting the Bills in "cold storage" when the Governor's position is only ornamental, that is, advisory. Singhvi called it a power to "decide not to decide".To this, Justice Pardiwala concurred and added: "Perhaps, what you just submitted makes sense. His[Governor's] role is advisory because Article 200 says the State legislature can pass [the Bill when referred it back by the Governor] with or without amendment. It is not bound. The primacy lies with the House."On this issue, it has been submitted that the issue of pocket veto is covered by the Punjab Governor's judgment and nothing further has to be deliberated upon it. In thiat judgment, it was observed that the Governor is bound to send the Bills back to the State legislature: "If the Governor decides to withhold assent under the substantive part of Article 200, the logical course of action is to pursue the course indicated in the first proviso of remitting the Bill to the state legislature for reconsideration. In other words, the power to withhold assent under the substantive part of Article 200 must be read together with the consequential course of action to be adopted by the Governor under the first proviso."At many instances during the hearing, including where this question was deliberated upon, Justice Pardiwala asked when was the Punjab judgment pronounced. When he was informed that the judgment was pronounced on November 10, 2023 and, and that the Tamil Nadu Governor endorsed on November 13, 2023 that he was withholding assent, Justice Pardiwala questioned why the Governor was not guided by this dictum....

Governor Can't 'Pocket-Veto' Bills, Anti-Federal To Return Bills Without Giving Reasons: Tamil Nadu Govt To Supreme Court

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

Governor Can't 'Pocket-Veto' Bills, Anti-Federal To Return Bills Without Giving Reasons: Tamil Nadu Govt To Supreme Court

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers