'Why TN Governor Unable To Decide On Bills & Referring Them To President? We Want To Know' : Supreme Court Hears Tamil Nadu Govt's Pleas

The Supreme Court today(February 4) heard the two writ petitions filed by the Tamil Nadu Government against the Governor, Dr. RN Ravi, for withholding assent for the bills(some of which relate to removing the Governor from the post of Vice-Chancellor of the various universities) passed by the Legislative Assembly between 2020 and 2023. They were submitted for the Governor's assent between January 13, 2020, and April 28, 2023. Several files relating to the decision of the Government regarding the grant of premature release of prisoners, sanction for prosecution and the appointment of members of the Tamil Nadu Service Commission are also pending approval before the Governor. They were submitted between April 10, 2022 and 15 May, 2023. As per the chronology of the events, on November 13, 2023, the Governor declared he was withholding assent on 10 Bills. Following this, the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly convened a special session on November 18, 2023 and re-enacted those Bills. While the matter was sub-judice, on November 28, the Governor referred some Bills to the President, after the Assembly re-enacted them following the Governor's earlier declaration that he was withholding his assent. This was after the Supreme Court had questioned the Governor for sitting over Bills pending his assent since January 2020. In fact, in November 2023, when the notice was issued in the first writ petition, the Court termed the Governor's inaction a "matter of serious concern".Today, before a bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi (appearing for Tamil Nadu Government in the first petition) and Abhishek Manu Singhvi (appearing for Tamil Nadu Government in the second writ petition) both discussed the interpretation of Article 200.Mukul Rohatgi's arguments Rohatgi argued that once the Governor says that he was withholding assent, the option of sending those bills to the President for reconsideration does not arise and the Governor is bound to give assent after the assembly re-enacts the bills. He added: "If he[Governor] does not do that, the entire system of democracy fails."Rohatgi argued that is nothing but a "subversion" to the Constitution. He has prayed for the Court to make a declaration that the Governor did not act in accordance with Article 200. It should be noted that when the Tamil Nadu matter was filed, a similar issue in the State of Punjab was going on. On November 23, 2023, a bench headed by former Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, comprising Justices Pardiwala and Manoj Misra observed that if a Governor decides to withhold assent to the Bill, then he has to return the Bill to the legislature for reconsideration. This was to clarify a situation which may not be explicitly stated in the Constitution as to what is to be done after the Governor withholds the assent for a Bill. Justice Pardiwala inquired what happens to a situation where the Bill is sent to the State legislature and is re-enacted but not to the satisfaction of the Governor. Rohatgi responded: "He has no choice. Suppose he says the whole Bill is unconstitutional or parts require a review. He sends it back with this message, then this will be deliberated by the House. The House after that message either accepts his views and amends the Act or go by its decision. Otherwise, the system of democracy will fail in this country. One hand, there are crores of people and on the other, there are delegates who are doing their job. The one person, however high its office may be, he has to according to the Constitution."Singhvi's arguments Singhvi argued that this was a case of the Governor simply doing "nothing". As per Singhvi, in the first part of Article 200, he can grant assent or send it to the President for reconsideration. The option of referring to the President has to be done at the first instance and not as an afterthought.Now, the Governor can exercise the option of sending it back to the State legislature as per the first proviso (this is what is referred to as withholding the assent). If he does so, and if the State legislature reconsiders it and sends it back, the Governor has "no option but to grant assent". After this stage, the Governor no longer can reserve the bill for the President's assent. Singhvi added that however in the rare exception, as envisaged in the last proviso, the Governor can do so if the Bill intends to derogate the powers of the High Court.When Justice Paradiwala questioned if the second proviso is a proviso to the first proviso, Singhvi answered it affirmatively. That is, the only exception to 'shall not withhold assent' in first proviso is the second proviso which relates to the High Court issue. Further, Singhvi referred to the November 23 order and argued that despite the matter being sub-judice, on November 28, the reenacted Bills were sent to the President in the second round of referral. As against this, the Attorney General of India R. Venkataramani, in one of those...

'Why TN Governor Unable To Decide On Bills & Referring Them To President? We Want To Know' : Supreme Court Hears Tamil Nadu Govt's Pleas

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

'Why TN Governor Unable To Decide On Bills & Referring Them To President? We Want To Know' : Supreme Court Hears Tamil Nadu Govt's Pleas

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