The Supreme Court of India, led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, has raised questions regarding the actions of Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi in referring bills to the President after withholding assent. This development follows the Governor’s decision to withhold assent on ten bills, which were subsequently re-enacted by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly.
Justice Chandrachud, along with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, noted that the Governor, as per Article 200 of the Constitution, has only three options: granting assent, withholding assent, or referring to the President. Once any of these options is exercised, the Governor cannot then choose another. The bench emphasized,
“Once he withholds the assent, there is no question of him then reserving it for the President. He can’t. He has to follow one of the three options – assent, withhold the assent, or refer it to the President.”
The issue arose when, on November 13, Governor Ravi declared he was withholding assent on the ten bills. Following this, the Tamil Nadu Assembly convened a special session on November 18 and re-enacted the same bills. The Supreme Court had previously questioned the Governor for keeping the bills pending for over three years and, on November 23, publicized its judgment in the Punjab Governor’s case, which held that a Governor must return the bill to the Assembly if withholding assent and cannot indefinitely sit over it.
Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the State of Tamil Nadu, informed the bench of a “new development” where the Governor referred the bills to the President on November 28. Singhvi expressed concern, stating,
“This hits the Constitution.”
CJI Chandrachud observed that the Governor cannot refer the bills to the President after exercising the option of withholding assent. Addressing Attorney General for India R Venkataramani, the CJI said,
“Once the Assembly re-passes the bill, after the Governor withholds the assent, then you can’t say you are referring to the President.”
The Attorney General argued that the proviso to Article 200, which allows the Assembly to re-enact the bills, only comes into operation if the Governor returns the Bill to the Assembly with a message. The CJI responded,
“According to you, the governor has an independent power of withholding the assent? We will consider that.”
Also read- Supreme Court Declines Individual Hate Speech Cases, Focuses On Systemic Mechanism (lawchakra.in)
CJI Chandrachud also urged the AG to resolve the impasse at the level of the Governor, suggesting that the Governor invite the Chief Minister for a discussion.
“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,”
he stated.
The matter is set for further consideration on December 11, with the bench also examining a similar matter in relation to the Kerala Governor.
In a related development, Tamil Nadu’s law minister S Regupathy criticized the Governor’s actions, saying,
“The governor has sent this to the President to prolong the issue.”
Senior advocate P Wilson, speaking in Delhi, noted that the re-adopted 10 bills were forwarded to the President on November 28, which he described as a violation of the Supreme Court’s orders.
The case, titled State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu, Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 1239/2023, highlights the ongoing legal and constitutional debate over the powers and duties of Governors in the Indian federal structure.
Also read- Delhi High Court Dismisses UCC Petitions, Defers To Law Commission (lawchakra.in)
