Supreme Court Urges Tamil Nadu Governor & Chief Minister To Have Dialogue To Resolve Deadlock Over Bills

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (December 13) urged the Chief Minister and the Governor of Tamil Nadu to have an open dialogue to resolve the deadlock over the passing of the bills.A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra was hearing a writ petition filed by the State of Tamil Nadu against the Governor's delay in granting assent to the bills passed by the legislative assembly. The matter was taken today towards the end of the day. Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the State, suggested that the matter be adjourned till January since a detailed hearing is necessary on the Constitutional question of whether the Governor can refer bills to the President after they have been re-passed by the legislature. It may be noted that on the previous occasion, the Court had orally remarked that the Governor cannot refer the bills to the President after withholding assent over them. CJI Chandrachud had pointed out then that the Governor only had three options as per Article 200 - granting assent, withholding assent, or referring to the President- and that after exercising any of these options, he cannot then exercise another option.Referring to the suggestion made by the CJI on the last occasion that the Governor should invite the CM for tea and have a talk, Singhvi said in a lighter vein, "Neither tea nor any stiffer beverage can solve this issue. This is purely a Constitutional question which this Court has to decide".Even while agreeing to adjourn the hearing, CJI emphasized the importance of communication between the Chief Minister and the Governor to find a resolution but clarified that the court would still continue to deal with the constitutional issue. The CJI said–"We will do what we have to do in this matter but in the meantime why don't they meet? If there is some way out..., the fact that bills have been sent can always be resolved...There must be some channel open between the CM and the governor. At least let them start talking to each other. We'll resolve the controversy. The business of government has to go on."Attorney General for India R Venkataramani then cited the example of the Univeristies' issue in West Bengal. He said that following his intervention as per the Court's suggestion in that case, there was a resolution of issues between the Chief Minister and Governor of the State of West Bengal and expressed the hope that same can be done with respect to Tamil Nadu as well.Following this, Senior Advocate Singhvi prayed before the bench to maintain status quo so that the President does not act on the bills in the meanwhile."Let us not have precipitation that when we come next time, the President has passed or rejected the bills. Let status quo be maintained."However, the CJI expressed reluctance to injunct the President of India, emphasizing that such an injunction on the President would seem highly improper. He said–"We don't want to injunct the President of India. It doesn't look good. If the bills have already gone to the President, we can't ask to not act."However, the CJI orally asked the Attorney General to look into the matter.The matter will now be taken up in January 2024.BackgroundOn November 13, the Governor had declared that he was withholding assent on ten bills. Following that, the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly convened a special session and re-enacted the very same bills on November 18. On November 20, the Supreme Court had questioned the Governor for keeping the bills pending for over three years. On November 23, the Supreme Court publicised its judgment in the Punjab Governor's case which categorically held that a Governor must return the bill to the Assembly if he was withholding assent on it and that he cannot indefinitely sit over it. This was followed by the decision of Tamil Nadu Governor to refer bills to the President, after declaring that he was withholding assent on them. The court had questioned the same stating that the Governor only had three options as per Article 200 - granting assent, withholding assent, or referring to the President- and that after exercising any of these options, he cannot then exercise another option. Following this, the State Government submitted an application before the Supreme Court to add another prayer to its petition seeking for any writ/order or direction to declare that the action of the Governor of Tamil Nadu of reserving the Bills for the consideration of the President was unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary, and unreasonable. Case Title: State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu, Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 1239/2023

Supreme Court Urges Tamil Nadu Governor & Chief Minister To Have Dialogue To Resolve Deadlock Over Bills

Padmakshi Sharma

Tags