TN governor cannot sit on bills without communicating: SC

The Supreme Court on Friday flagged the creation of an "impasse" if the Governor withheld his assent on the bills passed by legislative assembly without any communication to the state government and wondered how the deadlock would be resolved.

A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi couldn't simply sit over the bills based on perception of repugnancy with the central law, without communicating his opinion.

"When the governor feels that the bill suffers from repugnancy, that it will not fall within the ambit of changes, amendments, etc. So, we have a query. If the governor is prima facie of the view that the bill suffers from repugnance, should it not bring it to the notice of the state government? How is the government expected to know what is in the mind of the governor?" the bench asked attorney general R Venkataramani, representing the governor.

The bench went on to add, "If repugnancy is something that troubled the Governor, then the governor should have immediately brought it to the notice of the government, which could have reconsidered the said bills."

Justice Pardiwala, questioned the status of the bills, which were reserved for consideration of the President by the governor.

"If you are of the view that this bill suffers from repugnancy to the central law, then you have to give a message. The governor has to say something like I am referring this bill for the consideration of the President. Otherwise, there will be an impasse. How do you expect the state government to overcome repugnancy? If you create the impasse, you have to clear the impasse. But, who will clear the impasse? There cannot be an absolute deadlock," it observed.

Venkataramani said in seven of the bills, the assent was withheld by the President and the state government was informed about the decision.

"Withholding the assent means declining the assent," said the AG submitted, adding when the President decided to withhold the assent, as was communicated by the President in these cases, it meant the bills were repugnant.

The bench, however, said it might not be a correct interpretation of the provisions for accepting the argument would render the provisions under Article 200 and 201 as otiose.

Venkataramani said he would argue on the aspect in detail and sought time till February 10.

The bench, which deferred the matter, indicated it would reserve its verdict on the issue on February 10 after hearing both sides.

The top court was hearing two petitions filed by the Tamil Nadu government highlighting the prolonged confrontation between the state assembly and the governor over his refusal to assent to bills passed by the legislature.

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 issue related to Article 200 and if the arguments of the attorney general were to be accepted then the governor did not require to communicate any message to withhold his assent.

Venkataramani said everything depended on facts of each case and the governor in the present case did not act in a malafide manner.

Justice Pardiwala said if there was repugnancy then the Governor could straight away decline assent but the question was why did he withhold the assent.

Venkataramani said when there was a perceived repugnance, the governor was not bound to "write an essay" on repugnance and communicate it to the government but could simply send it to the President.

Referring to the bills that related to the appointment of vice-chancellor, the attorney general said the state government wanted to exclude the governor from the appointment processes.

He said the governor told the government it was against the central law and UGC regulation and a search-cum-selection committee had to be formed but the government did not do so and re-enacted the bill, which has now been reserved for the consideration of the President.

The delay in giving assent by the governor prompted the state government to approach the top court in 2023 claiming 12 bills, including one of 2020, were pending with him.

On November 13, 2023, the governor declared he was withholding assent to 10 bills. The legislative assembly subsequently 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 February 6, the bench questioned the delay on the part of the governor over his assent to the bills and said "he seems to have adopted his own procedure" and framed several key questions for adjudication.