Today, On 6th February, A Supreme Court bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan framed key questions in the dispute between the Tamil Nadu government and the Governor over withholding assent to bills. The court is hearing arguments from senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, representing the state. The issue revolves around the Governor’s delay in approving legislation passed by the Assembly. The case highlights ongoing tensions between the state government and the Raj Bhavan.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court framed eight key questions to address the dispute between the Tamil Nadu government and Governor R N Ravi regarding his withholding of assent to bills passed by the legislative assembly.
The questions focus on concepts such as pocket veto and the governor’s authority and discretion.
The bench, comprised of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, is currently hearing arguments from senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, representing the Tamil Nadu government.
Also Read: Supreme Court Deliberates on ED’s Authority in Tamil Nadu District Collectors’ Summoning
Justice Pardiwala questioned,
“What is it that is so objectionable in the bills that the Governor took three years to identify?”
The bench also noted that the Governor had referred two bills to the President after the assembly re-enacted them.
Attorney General R Venkataramani stated that the Governor did not return the bills to the Assembly for reconsideration and merely announced that he was withholding assent. However, Justice Pardiwala noted that simply declaring the withholding of assent without returning the bills to the Assembly would undermine Article 200 of the Constitution.
At the beginning of the proceedings, the bench listed the questions
The first question posed was,
“When a state legislative assembly passes a bill and sends it to the Governor for assent, and the Governor withholds assent, but the bill is passed again and resubmitted, does the Governor have the authority to withhold it once more?”
Another inquiry was,
“Is the discretion of the governor to present a bill to the President limited to specific matters, or does it extend beyond certain prescribed subjects?”
The bench also indicated it would examine the considerations that led the governor to present the bill to the president instead of granting assent.
Additionally, they asked,
“What is the concept of a pocket veto, and does it find a place within the constitutional framework of India?”
He states,
‘I withhold assent, but I won’t ask you to reconsider the bill.’
It makes no sense to continue withholding assent without returning the bills to the legislature, as this frustrates the intent of Article 200.
Justice Pardiwala commented,
“It appears he has adopted his own procedure.”
He further emphasized that the Governor cannot simply withhold assent citing repugnancy.
Justice Pardiwala told the Attorney General,
“You must provide factual reasons for the Governor’s decision to withhold assent. Present us with original files, documents, or any contemporaneous records from the Governor’s office that show what was reviewed, discussed, and what issues were identified,”
He also noted that the Governor’s announcement to withhold assent came shortly after the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Punjab Governor’s case, which stated that Governors cannot veto the assembly by delaying bills.
Justice Pardiwala remarked,
“The judgment was issued just three days before his decision to withhold,”
The bench informed the Attorney General that the State had alleged both malice-in-law and malice-in-fact on the part of the Governor. The AG argued that the bills sought to remove the Governor as Chancellor of State Universities, deeming it a matter of national significance.
However, the bench clarified that it would not delve into the historical context but would focus solely on the Governor’s authority to withhold assent for the twelve bills passed by the state legislature, as well as the decision to send two bills directly to the President while claiming to have withheld assent.
Justice Pardiwala stated,
“You need to explain what was so egregious in the bills to warrant this action,”
When the AG suggested that a mere declaration of repugnance sufficed and that the Governor shouldn’t be expected to “write an essay,”
Justice Pardiwala countered,
“You must demonstrate the repugnancy. Can bills be withheld purely on the basis of repugnancy?”
He also pointed out that while the Governor had the option to refer all bills to the President, he chose to send only two.
Asserting that the case revolves around the interpretation of Article 200 of the Constitution. Justice Pardiwala questioned,
“How long can such bills be delayed?”
The arguments are set to continue tomorrow.
The bench was reviewing the writ petitions filed by the State against the Governor’s refusal to grant assent to the bills. Earlier in the day, the bench heard extensive arguments from Senior Advocates Rakesh Dwivedi, Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Mukul Rohatgi, and P. Wilson representing the State.
The bench framed the following key issues for determination:
- If a state passes a bill and submits it to the Governor, who withholds assent, can the bill be presented again after re-enactment, and is it within the Governor’s purview to then present it to the President?
- Is the Governor’s discretion to present a bill to the President limited to specific matters?
- What considerations influenced the Governor’s decision to present the bill to the President?
- What is the concept of pocket veto, and is it recognized within the constitutional framework?
- How should Article 200 be interpreted? If a bill is presented to the Governor and returned for reconsideration according to the first proviso, or if the Governor declares he is withholding assent after the legislature re-passes it, is the Governor obligated to grant assent in both scenarios?
The bench plans to interpret Article 200 of the Constitution, which grants the governor the power to approve or withhold approval of bills passed by the state legislature.
They queried,
“When a bill is presented to the Governor and returned for reconsideration, does the Governor have an obligation to grant assent once the bill is passed again by the legislature?”
The Attorney General R Venkataramani is expected to present arguments later in the day. This hearing concerns two petitions filed by the Tamil Nadu government regarding the ongoing standoff between the state assembly and the governor over his refusal to assent to passed bills.
On November 13, 2023, the Governor announced that he was withholding assent on ten bills. Subsequently, the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly held a special session and re-enacted those same bills on November 18, 2023.
While issuing notice on the State’s petition in November 2023, the bench, led by then Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, noted that the oldest pending bill had been submitted to the Governor in January 2020 and recorded the dates for all ten bills sent to the Governor’s office, which spanned from 2020 to 2023.