In the Supreme Court, Tamil Nadu criticized the governor for creating a “constitutional deadlock” with alleged “malice.” The state government accused him of delaying key decisions and obstructing governance. The issue has escalated into a legal battle. The court proceedings highlight growing tensions between state authorities and the governor.
Chennai: The Tamil Nadu government, led by M.K. Stalin, informed the Supreme Court on Tuesday that Governor R.N. Ravi’s refusal to assent to several key bills passed by the state assembly resulted in a “constitutional deadlock.”
The government accused the governor of acting with malice since he took office, leading to a complete stay.
During the hearing before Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Mukul Rohatgi, and P. Wilson argued that the governor’s actions are contrary to constitutional provisions.
Also Read: Supreme Court Rejects Plea to Remove Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi
They warned that if this continues, the democratic system in the state could collapse, as the elected government is being impeded from functioning effectively. They noted that ten bills had been sent to the governor after being reconsidered by the assembly, yet he has not granted approval.
Singhvi emphasized that under Article 200 of the Constitution, a governor can either grant assent, refer the bill to the President, or send it back for reconsideration. He pointed out that once a bill is sent back after reconsideration, the governor has no choice but to approve it. He described the governor’s actions as a mockery of Article 200 and urged the court to intervene to resolve the issue.
Rohatgi added that similar problems have arisen in other states governed by opposition parties, such as Punjab and West Bengal, which have also sought judicial intervention. Wilson highlighted that the governor has acted with malice from the beginning and mentioned that he had even requested the government to dismiss a minister.
In response, Attorney General R. Venkataramani, representing the governor, stated that all bills requiring the governor’s assent have already been addressed, with no pending bills awaiting approval.
Also Read: Tamil Nadu Gov. Moves Supreme Court to Lift Stay on Janmam Land Development
The state government contended that an elected government has the right to make mistakes, and it is ultimately up to the electorate to decide on any actions against it. They asserted that governors are constitutionally obligated to act in accordance with the advice of the council of ministers.
As the Supreme Court deliberates on this crucial issue, the outcome will have far-reaching implications on centre-state relations. The ruling will likely clarify governors’ constitutional limits and ensure that state governments can function without undue political obstruction.