The Supreme Court on Monday questioned Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi's "silence" before withholding assent to the bills passed by the legislative assembly and wondered how could he refer the "re-passed bills" to the President. A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan posed questions to the Governor, represented by attorney general R Venkataramani, and reserved its verdict on the dispute.
"Why was the Governor silent for years? Why did he not make any communication with the government?
Then he withholds his assent and reserves the bills for the consideration of the President," it said. It went on to ask, "How could he refer the re-passed bills to the President?" Venkataramani submitted there was no express provision in the Constitution which restrained the Governor from sending the re-passed bill to the President for consideration.
The delay in giving assent by the Governor had prompted the State Government to move the top court in 2023, claiming 12 bills, including one from 2020, were pending with him. On November 13, 2023, the Governor declared he was withholding assent to 10 bills following which the legislative assembly convened a special session and re-enacted the very same bills on November 18, 2023. The Governor on November 28 reserved some of the bills for consideration of the President.
On Monday, the top court framed several additional questions for adjudication of the disputes and sought assistance on interpretation of Article 200 of the Constitution, which deals with power of Governor to give his assent to bills, withhold his assent and reserve for the consideration of the President.
Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the Tamil Nadu Government, argued any other interpretation of Article 200 and its provisos would mean a return to the "imperial age".
"The court has to adopt a constitutional approach and more of an organic approach. The state functions in its own domain through plenary powers and there is supremacy of Parliamentary democracy. These are basic features of the Constitution as interpreted by this court in numerous judgements post 1973 verdict in Kesavananda Bharati case," said Dwivedi.
