In recent development, the Supreme Court of India, led by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, has raised serious questions regarding the prolonged delay by the Tamil Nadu Governor in acting on several Bills sent for his assent. The apex court’s inquiry comes in the wake of a petition filed by the Tamil Nadu Government, which accuses Governor R N Ravi of not acting on some Bills sent by the Legislature since January 2020.
Also read- Supreme Court Issues Warning To Patanjali Over Misleading Ads On Allopathic Medicines (lawchakra.in)
The Supreme Court’s bench, which also includes Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, expressed concern over the Governor’s inaction, especially noting that some decisions were only taken after the court’s intervention.
“The Governor says he has disposed of these Bills on November 13. Our concern is that our order was passed on November 10. These Bills have been pending since January 2020. It means that the Governor took the decision after the court issued notice. What was the Governor doing for three years? Why should the Governor wait for the parties to approach the Supreme Court,”
the CJI questioned.
Attorney General R Venkataramani informed the court that out of 181 Bills sent to the Governor since 2020, 152 had been cleared. The dispute primarily revolves around Bills that seek to limit the Governor’s power as Chancellor in appointing Vice-Chancellors of universities. Following the Supreme Court’s notice, Governor Ravi withheld assent and returned 10 pending Bills to the state government, which were subsequently re-adopted by the Tamil Nadu Assembly.
Senior Advocate A M Singhvi, representing the Tamil Nadu government, argued that Governor Ravi had “violated every word of the provision” that outlines the Governor’s responsibilities when a Bill is forwarded by the Legislature. He questioned,
“Does the Governor have a pocket veto?”
In response to a hypothetical scenario posed by the CJI about a state enacting an amendment beyond its legislative competence, Singhvi pointed out that the Governor has the option of sending such a Bill to the President.
The CJI further clarified the legal provisions, stating,
“The provision states that once the Legislature sends it back, the Governor shall not withhold assent. So can he send it to the President once the Bill is resubmitted?”
Singhvi responded that the Governor cannot do so after sending it back to the House, emphasizing that the intention was never for the Governor to sit on the Bill and cause delays.
The Attorney General highlighted that the Governor is not merely a “technical supervisor” and mentioned that of the 181 Bills sent between 2020 and 2023, assent was given to 152 Bills, five were withdrawn by the government, and nine were reserved for the President’s consideration. The primary contention remains over Bills related to university amendments.
The Supreme Court bench agreed to wait for the Governor’s response on the Bills, clarifying that it was not delving into the merits of the Bills but was concerned about the delay. The next hearing is scheduled for December 1. The court’s order emphasized that the issue is not about any particular Governor’s delay in discharging constitutional functions, but about a general delay in exercising Constitutional functions under Article 200.
This case highlights the intricate balance of power between state legislatures and the Governor’s office in India, and the role of the judiciary in ensuring constitutional compliance and timely governance. The Supreme Court’s intervention in this matter underscores the importance of timely decision-making in the legislative process and the need for constitutional functionaries to adhere to their duties responsibly.
Also read- Supreme Court Adjourns Gyanvapi Case Hearing To December 1 Amid Legal Complexities (lawchakra.in)