New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday questioned the delay on the part of Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi over his assent to the bills passed by the state legislative assembly and said “he seems to have adopted his own procedure”.
A bench comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said, “He (the governor) seems to have adopted his own procedure. He says, ‘I withhold assent, but I will not ask you to reconsider the bill’. It does not make sense to keep withholding assent and not send it to the legislature thereby frustrating the provision of Article 200.”
The bench therefore framed several key questions for adjudication on the dispute between the state government and the Governor over withholding of assent to bills.
Another one asks, “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 would deal on what considerations influenced the governor’s decision to present the bill to the President instead of granting assent.
“What is the concept of a pocket veto, and does it find a place within the constitutional framework of India,” reads another question.
The bench observed the bills, on which assent was withheld, were not sent back to the government, and merely declaring that the assent was being withheld without returning the bills to the assembly would frustrate Article 200 of the Constitution.
Article 200 of the Constitution gives the governor the power to approve or withhold approval of bills passed by the state legislature. The governor can also send a bill back to the legislature for reconsideration or suggest changes.
The bench said the governor took over three years before declaring he was withholding assent on certain bills and referring some to the President.
The top court asked attorney general R Venkataramani, who was representing the Tamil Nadu governor, why did he sit over the bills for so long before saying he was withholding assent and did not send the bills back to the government.
“We will not make the governor as small as the petitioner argued (to be). We are not undermining his powers. Today, we are examining his power to withhold 12 bills duly passed by the state legislature and send two bills to President directly and then say I withhold assent. You have to tell us what was so gross in the bills that he did so,” it said.
Venkataramani said the state government’s arguments tried to show the governor’s post was small and insignificant. The bench however asked him, “What is something so gross in the bills which the governor took three years to find out?”
It went on to add, “We do not want to undermine the powers of the governor. We are today examining the actions of the governor.”
The governor, said the bench, referred two bills to the President after the assembly re-enacted it and said he was withholding assent on 10 bills.
The bench would resume hearing on February 7 and has asked the attorney general to show “factually” why the governor withheld his assent.
“Either you show us from some original files, or some other documents, some contemporaneous record available with the office of the governor as to what was looked into, what was discussed, what were the lacunae,” it said.
The bench referred to a judgment passed by the top court in a similar case from Punjab and said the Tamil Nadu governor said he was withholding assent after the verdict.
The verdict held governors couldn’t veto the assembly by sitting over bills.
The bench said the state government alleged malice on the part of the governor both in law and on facts.
The law officer said one of the bills sought to take away the powers of the governor as the chancellor of state universities and it was a matter of national importance, repugnant to the established legal principles.
He said only a mere statement of repugnance was enough and the governor couldn’t be expected to write an essay.
“You need to show us the repugnancy. In the name of repugnancy can the bills be withheld,” the bench said.
The bench would deal with the interpretation of Article 200 of the Constitution.
“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,” it asked.
The Tamil Nadu government has filed two petitions highlighting the prolonged confrontation between the state assembly and the governor over his refusal to assent to bills passed by the legislature.
A battery of senior advocates including Rakesh Dwivedi, Mukul Rohatgi, Abhishek Singhvi argued for the state government.
Dwivedi said withholding assent simpliciter means exercising the pocket veto and putting the bills in cold storage and the fact that the governor delaying bills for two or three years had become a norm in Tamil Nadu.
Singhvi said federalism was part of the basic structure and the essence of democracy which couldn’t “be crushed like this”.
“When the governor is not deciding the bills, it is affecting governance,” he said.
