'TN Governor Seems To Have Adopted His Own Procedure' : Supreme Court Questions Governor RN Ravi For Withholding Bills

The Supreme Court on Thursday (February 6) asked why the Tamil Nadu Governor sat over the bills enacted by the Tamil Nadu legislative assembly for over three years before declaring that he was withholding assent and referring some of them to the President.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan asked the Attorney General for India R Venkataramani why the Governor took so long to send the bills to the President in the name of repugnancy.

"What is something so gross in the bills which the Governor took 3 years to find?" Justice Pardiwala asked. The bench also pointed out that the Governor referred two bills to the President after the assembly re-enacted the bills.

AG R Venkataramani said that the Governor did not send the bills to the Assembly for reconsideration and that he only declared that he was withholding his assent. Justice Pardiwala however remarked that merely declaring the withholding of assent without returning the bills to the assembly would frustrate Article 200 of the Constitution.

"He says, 'I withhold assent, but I will not ask you to reconsider the bill'. It does not make sense to keep withholding assent and not send to the legislature thereby frustrating the proviso of Article 200. He seems to have adopted his own procedure," Justice Pardiwala said.

Justice Pardiwala said that the Governor cannot simply withhold assent in the name of repugnancy. "You need to show us factually why the Governor withheld assent. Either you show us from some original files, or some other documents, some contemporaneous record available with the office of the Governor as to what was looked into, what was discussed, what were the lacunae," Justice Pardiwala told the AG.

Justice Pardiwala pointed out that the Governor's declaration that he was withholding assent for the bills came soon after the Supreme Court ruled in the Punjab Governor's case that Governors cannot veto the assembly by sitting over bills. "The judgment came three days prior to his decision to withhold," Justice Pardiwala said. AG claimed that it was a mere coincidence.

The bench told the Attorney General that the State has not only alleged malice-in-law but also malice-in-fact on the part of the Governor.

AG argued that the bills were removing the Governor as the Chancellor of the State Universities and it was a matter of national importance. The bench said that it was not going to examine the history and was only examining the power of the Governor to withhold the twelve bills duly passed by the state legislature and send two bills to the President directly and then say he has withheld assent."You have to tell us what was so gross in the bills that he did so," Justice Pardiwala said.

When the AG said that only a mere statement of repugnance was enough and that the Governor cannot be expected to "write an essay", Justice Pardiwala said, "You need to show us the repugnancy. In the name of repugnancy can the bills be withheld?". The judge also pointed out that the Governor had an option to refer all bills to the President but he sent only two.

"How long can such bills be held up?" Justice Pardiwala wondered. He said that the case hinged on the interpretation of Article 200 of the Constitution.

The arguments will continue tomorrow. The bench was hearing the writ petitions filed by the State against the Governor's refusal to grant assent for the bills.

Earlier in the day, the bench extensively heard Senior Advocates Rakesh Dwivedi, Dr AM Singhvi, Mukul Rohatgi and P Wilson for the State. The bench framed the following issues for decision :

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? 

 On November 13, 2023, 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, 2023.

While issuing notice on the State's petition in November 2023, the bench led by the then Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud noted that oldest of the pending bills was sent to the Governor in January 2020. The bench had also recorded the dates on which the ten bills were sent to the Governor's office, which range from 2020 to 2023.

Case Details: THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU v THE GOVERNOR OF TAMILNADU AND ANR| W.P.(C) No. 1239/2023 & THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU v. THE VICE CHANCELLOR AND ORS| W.P.(C) No. 1271/2023