The Supreme Court of India began hearings on Tamil Nadu’s challenge against Governor RN Ravi’s discretionary power to withhold legislation. The court questioned the legality of sending re-passed Bills to the President and the constitutionality of the Governor’s actions. A verdict is pending, highlighting critical issues in federal relations.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court resumed hearings on the Tamil Nadu government’s petition against Governor RN Ravi, questioning the Governor’s discretionary powers in withholding Bills passed by the state legislature. The arguments were heard by Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan.
The Supreme Court questioned the legality of the Governor’s move to send re-passed Bills to the President, asking:
“The Tamil Nadu Assembly re-passed the Bills after they were returned by the Governor. How, then, could the Governor send them to the President? Is this legally permissible?”
The Tamil Nadu government argued that the Governor’s actions were unconstitutional, as he failed to provide explanations for withholding assent.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Questions Tamil Nadu Governor’s Delay in Assenting to Bills
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the Tamil Nadu government, stated:
“The Governor must act based on the advice of the Council of Ministers. He cannot exercise absolute discretion.”
The state claimed that after the Governor returned the Bills on November 13, 2023, the Assembly re-passed them on November 18, 2023, yet the Governor forwarded them to the President on November 28, 2023, instead of granting assent.
Singhvi cited the Supreme Court’s Punjab ruling, emphasizing that withholding assent indefinitely violates the Constitution.
The Governor’s counsel argued that the Governor has the right to approve, withhold, or forward Bills to the President. They contended that the Governor must scrutinize Bills rather than blindly approving them.
Attorney General R Venkataramani stated:
“When the President withholds assent, Article 254 will come into play.”
However, the Supreme Court questioned this argument, asking:
“If a Governor repeatedly returns Bills instead of approving them, does that not go against the Constitution’s intent?”
The Supreme Court raised concerns over the Governor’s delay in processing Bills, questioning:
“Why did the Governor sit on Bills for extended periods, only to later send them to the President instead of taking a clear stand earlier?”
The judges referred to Dr. BR Ambedkar’s statements, emphasizing that Governors must function within constitutional limits and not as independent power centers.
ALSO READ: Governor’s Rejection of Ponmudi as Minister|| Supreme Court to Review Tamil Nadu’s Plea
After hearing arguments from both sides, the Supreme Court directed all parties to submit written arguments within a week. The final verdict has been reserved, marking this as a crucial case in Governor-state relations and federalism in India.
CASE TITLE – THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU v THE GOVERNOR OF TAMILNADU AND ANR| W.P.(C) No. 1239/2023 & THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU v. THE VICE CHANCELLOR AND ORS| W.P.(C) No. 1271/2023
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE