New Delhi, Feb 6 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Thursday questioned the prolonged delay by the Tamil Nadu Governor in granting assent to bills passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly.
The court noted that the Governor withheld assent for several bills after sitting on them for over three years and referred some to the President.
A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan sought clarification from Attorney General (AG) R Venkataramani regarding the Governor’s prolonged inaction. “What is so gross in the bills that the Governor took three years to identify?” Justice Pardiwala asked.
The bench highlighted that two bills were referred to the President only after the assembly re-enacted them.
AG Venkataramani clarified that the Governor did not return the bills for reconsideration but merely declared that he was withholding assent. Justice Pardiwala criticized this approach, stating it undermines Article 200 of the Constitution.
“He says, ‘I withhold assent but will not ask for reconsideration.’ That frustrates the proviso of Article 200. The Governor seems to have adopted his procedure,” Justice Pardiwala remarked.
The court demanded factual justification for the Governor’s decision, asking for original files or documents to understand the basis for withholding assent. The bench emphasized that a mere statement of repugnance was insufficient.
Justice Pardiwala noted that the Governor’s decision came just three days after the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Punjab Governor case, which held that Governors cannot veto legislative bills by inaction.
The bench observed that Tamil Nadu’s government alleged both malice-in-law and malice-in-fact on the Governor’s part.
The AG contended that the bills involved the removal of the Governor as Chancellor of state universities, making it a matter of national importance.
However, the bench asserted that the court’s focus was solely on the Governor’s power to withhold assent for the twelve bills passed by the legislature and send only two to the President.
“You need to tell us what was so gross in the bills that warranted this action,” Justice Pardiwala insisted.
When the AG argued that the Governor cannot be expected to “write an essay” on the reasons for withholding assent, Justice Pardiwala responded, “You need to show us the repugnancy. Can bills be withheld in the name of repugnancy without justification?”
The bench framed the following key issues for consideration, If a state re-enacts a bill after the Governor withholds assent, can the Governor still present it to the President
The Court asked, “Is the Governor’s discretion to refer a bill to the President limited to certain matters?
What factors did the Governor consider before referring the bill to the President? and what is the constitutional status of a “pocket veto”?
The Court further asked, ” How should Article 200 of the Constitution be interpreted regarding the Governor’s duties when bills are re-presented after being returned or withheld?
The case will continue tomorrow, with further arguments expected.
The Tamil Nadu Governor had declared withholding assent on ten bills on November 13, 2023. In response, the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly re-enacted the same bills on November 18, 2023.
The Supreme Court previously noted that some of these bills had been pending since January 2020.
Senior Advocates Rakesh Dwivedi, Dr. AM Singhvi, Mukul Rohatgi, and P. Wilson are representing the state.
