The bench asked, “When the Governor feels that the bill suffers from repugnancy, that it will not fall within the ambit of changes, amendments, etc. So, we have a query. If the Governor is prima facie of the view that the bill suffers from repugnance, should it not bring it to the notice of the state government? How is the government expected to know what is in the mind of the Governor?”
NEW DELHI: On Friday (7th Feb): The Supreme Court of India has raised concerns over a “deadlock” caused by Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi not taking a decision on bills passed by the legislative assembly.
The court questioned
“how the state government could function if the Governor neither approved nor communicated his reasons for withholding assent”.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Rejects Plea to Remove Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi
A bench comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan noted that the “Governor could not simply sit on the bills because he believed they conflicted with Central laws”.
The bench asked, “When the Governor feels that the bill suffers from repugnancy, that it will not fall within the ambit of changes, amendments, etc. So, we have a query. If the Governor is prima facie of the view that the bill suffers from repugnance, should it not bring it to the notice of the state government? How is the government expected to know what is in the mind of the Governor?”
The court stressed that if repugnancy (a conflict with Central law) was the Governor’s concern, he should have informed the state government.
“If repugnancy is something that troubled the Governor, then the Governor should have immediately brought it to the notice of the government, which could have reconsidered the said bills.”
Governor Cannot Create an Impasse
Justice Pardiwala questioned the status of bills that had been sent to the President by the Governor, saying,
“If you are of the view that this bill suffers from repugnancy to the Central law, then you have to give a message. The Governor has to say something like I am referring this bill for the consideration of the President. Otherwise, there will be an impasse. How do you expect the state government to overcome repugnancy? If you create the impasse, you have to clear the impasse. But, who will clear the impasse? There cannot be an absolute deadlock.”
Attorney General R Venkataramani, representing the Governor, responded that in seven cases, the President had withheld assent and the state government was informed accordingly.
“Withholding the assent means declining the assent,”
he stated.
He argued that the President’s decision to withhold assent indicated that the bills were repugnant to Central law.
However, the bench disagreed with this interpretation, noting that accepting the Attorney General’s argument would render Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution meaningless. The court deferred the matter and set February 10 as the date for further hearings, indicating that it may reserve its judgment on that day.
The Tamil Nadu government has filed petitions in the Supreme Court, highlighting repeated conflicts between the legislative assembly and the Governor over his refusal to approve bills.
Article 200 of the Constitution gives the Governor the authority to approve or withhold approval of bills passed by the state legislature. The Governor can also return a bill for reconsideration or suggest amendments.
The Supreme Court pointed out that if the Attorney General’s argument was accepted, the Governor would not need to communicate his decision to withhold assent. The bench asked why the Governor withheld approval instead of outright rejecting the bills.
Justice Pardiwala noted,
“If there was repugnancy then the Governor could straight away decline assent but the question was why did he withhold the assent.”
Venkataramani argued that when there was a perceived conflict, the Governor was not required to provide a detailed explanation.
“When there was a perceived repugnance, the Governor was not bound to ‘write an essay’ on repugnance and communicate it to the government but could simply send it to the President.”
One of the key issues in the dispute is the appointment of vice-chancellors in universities. The Attorney General stated that the state government wanted to exclude the Governor from this process.
He explained that the Governor had informed the government that this was against Central law and University Grants Commission (UGC) regulations. He further noted that the government had failed to form a search-cum-selection committee as required and instead re-enacted the same bill, which has now been referred to the President.
The Tamil Nadu government moved the Supreme Court in 2023 over the Governor’s inaction on 12 bills, including one pending since 2020. On November 13, 2023, the Governor announced that he was withholding assent to 10 bills. In response, the legislative assembly convened a special session on November 18, 2023, and re-enacted the same bills. On November 28, the Governor sent some of these bills to the President for consideration.
On February 6, the Supreme Court criticized the Governor’s delay in granting assent, stating that “he seems to have adopted his own procedure.” The bench framed several key legal questions for adjudication, focusing on the Governor’s role under Article 200 and whether his actions were justified.
Case Title :
CR Jaya Sukin v. The Secretary to the President and others | W.P.(C) No. 98/2025
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
