The Supreme Court has raised concerns regarding a potential “impasse” stemming from the Governor’s failure to provide assent to several bills passed by the Tamil Nadu legislative assembly. The court questioned how such a deadlock might be resolved if the Governor does not communicate any concerns to the state government.
A bench comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan emphasized that Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi cannot simply withhold assent based on perceived conflicts with Central law without expressing his views to the government. They stated, “If the Governor believes that the bill is at odds with Central legislation, he should inform the state government. How can the government understand the Governor’s position otherwise?”
The justices pointed out that if the Governor finds the bills problematic, he should promptly communicate his concerns so that the state government can reconsider the legislation.
Justice Pardiwala further addressed the status of the bills currently pending while awaiting presidential consideration. “If you believe a bill conflicts with Central law, a message from the Governor is essential. The Governor should state that he is referring the bill for presidential consideration. Without this action, we face an impasse that must be resolved,” the court remarked.
The attorney general noted that in seven cases, the President had withheld assent, which had been communicated to the state government. The Attorney General clarified that withholding assent signifies a decline in approval.
However, the bench contested this interpretation, suggesting that such reasoning could undermine the provisions under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution. The attorney general requested additional time to present a detailed argument, which the court scheduled for February 10.
This session is part of broader litigation initiated by the Tamil Nadu government that seeks to address ongoing tensions between the state legislature and the Governor regarding pending bills. Article 200 grants the Governor the authority to approve or withhold approval of state legislature bills, along with the option to return bills for further consideration.
The bench indicated that if the Attorney General’s arguments are accepted, the necessity for the Governor to communicate before withholding assent could be eliminated. The Attorney General contended that the Governor acted on the specifics of each case without malice.
Justice Pardiwala acknowledged that if a conflict exists, the Governor may decline assent outright but questioned the reasoning for withholding it in these instances. The Attorney General argued that perceived conflicts do not necessitate an exhaustive explanation before communicating decisions to the President.
Regarding bills related to the appointment of vice-chancellors, the Attorney General stated the state desired to remove the Governor from the appointment process, asserting that such measures contradicted Central law and UGC regulations. He added that the state failed to establish a required selection committee, leading to the re-enactment of the bill, which is now awaiting presidential consideration.
The delays in gubernatorial assent prompted the Tamil Nadu government to approach the Supreme Court in 2023, citing 12 bills, including one from 2020, that remained pending. On November 13, 2023, the Governor disclosed he had withheld assent from 10 bills, after which the legislative assembly convened a special session to re-enact them on November 18, 2023. Subsequently, on November 28, the Governor reserved several bills for presidential review.
On February 6, the bench questioned the Governor’s protracted delay in granting assent and noted that “he appears to have adopted his own procedures,” which opened the floor for critical inquiries regarding the matter.
