New Delhi, Feb 7 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Friday raised crucial questions on whether the Tamil Nadu Governor can simply withhold assent to Assembly-passed bills based on his perception of repugnance to Central laws without formally communicating his opinion to the government.
A bench, comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan, emphasized that under Article 200 of the Constitution, the Governor is obligated to return the bills to the Assembly for reconsideration if repugnance is found.
The Court expressed concerns over the “impasse” caused by the President’s decision to return the bills without clear communication, prompting judicial intervention to examine the factual question of repugnance.
The case, filed by the Tamil Nadu government in 2023, involves the Governor’s refusal to grant assent to twelve bills, some pending since January 2020. After prolonged delays, the Governor declared his decision to withhold assent in November 2023. In response, the Tamil Nadu Assembly re-enacted the same bills, with some later referred to the President.
Attorney General of India R. Venkataramani argued that the Governor had multiple options under Article 200, including withholding assent or referring the bills directly to the President. He maintained that once assent is withheld, the bills “fall” and there is no obligation to return them to the Assembly.
Justice Pardiwala questioned this interpretation, asserting that the Governor should inform the State Government of any concerns, particularly if repugnance is suspected. “If the Governor believes a bill suffers from repugnance, shouldn’t he communicate it to the government for reconsideration?” the Court queried.
The Attorney General argued that “perceived repugnance” justified the Governor’s direct referral to the President, without requiring a detailed explanation to the Assembly.
However, Justice Pardiwala observed that the interpretation presented by the Attorney General risked making Article 200 opaque.
The Court highlighted the importance of clear communication under Articles 200 and 201 and stressed that a framework must be established to prevent deadlocks between the State and the Governor’s office.
The hearing will continue on Monday, with the Court set to address further constitutional and procedural questions.
