Supreme Court Questions Tamil Nadu Governor For Referring Bills To President, Says He Can't Do It After Withholding Assent

The Supreme Court on Friday (December 1) questioned the decision of Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi to refer bills to the President, after declaring that he was withholding assent on them. The bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra orally said that the Governor cannot refer the bills to the President after the Assembly has re-enacted the Bills following the Governor's declaration of withholding the assent.

The bench said that the Governor has only 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.

On 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.

Today, Senior Advocate Dr.Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu, told the benchthat there was a "new development" in the matter - on November 28, the Governor referred the bills to the President. "This hits the Constitution," Singhvi lamented.

CJI DY Chandrachud observed that the Governor cannot refer the bills to the President after he has exercised the option of withholding assent over them.

Addressing Attorney General for India R Venkataramani, CJI Chandrachud orally said :

"As per Article 200 of the Constitution, there are three options to the Governor - he can assent or withhold assent or he can reserve the bill for President. They are all alternatives. In this case, the Governor initially said I withhold assent. Once he withholds the assent, there is no question of him then reserving it for President. He can't. He has to follow one of the three options - assent, withhold the assent or refer it to the President. So first and foremost, once he withholds the assent, then he can never say that now I am referring it to the President. Second, once he withholds the assent, he can't kill the bill right there. He can't stall the bill there. Once he withholds the assent, the proviso does not give him the fourth option."

When AG said that this was an "open question" to be considered and that the Governor need not refer the bill to the Assembly if he was withholding the assent, CJI replied that this question was settled in the Punjab Governor's case. If the Governor need not return the bill to the assembly after withholding assent, then it would mean that he can "completely stultify the bill", CJI cautioned.

"Unlike the office of the Governor, a President holds an elected office. So a much wider power is given to the President. But a Governor as a nominee of the Union Government, must exercise one of the three options provided in Article 200," CJI reiterated.

"Once the Assembly re-passes the bill, after the Governor withholds the assent, then you can't say you are referring to the President. Because, last line of the proviso to Article 200 says "then shall not withhold the assent", CJI added.

AG argued that the proviso to Article 200, which enables the Assembly to re-enact the bills, will come into operation only if the Governor is returning the Bill to the Assembly with a message.

"According to you, the governor has an independent power of withholding the assent? We will consider that," CJI said.

CJI also urged the AG to ensure that the impasse is resolved at the level of the Governor, without waiting for a judgment from the Court. CJI suggested to the AG that the Governor can invite the Chief Minister for a talk and resolve the issue.

"Mr Attorney, there are so many things which need to be resolved between the Governor and the CM. We would appreciate if the Governor sits with the CM and resolves this. I think it would be appropriate if the Governor invites the CM," CJI told the AG.

The matter will be next considered on December 11. The bench is also considering a similar matter in relation to the Kerala Governor.

Case : State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu, Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 1239/2023