February 8, 2025
What's the story: The Supreme Court of India has criticized Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi for withholding assent to state bills without providing proper communication, leading to a legislative deadlock. A bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan questioned the lack of transparency in the process and sought clarity on how to resolve such impasses. The court stressed that the governor cannot withhold assent to bills based on perceived repugnancy with central laws without informing the state government.
Legal Debate:
The bench questioned the governor's actions, emphasizing the need for transparency. Justice Pardiwala remarked, "If the Governor is prima facie of the view that the bill suffers from repugnancy, should it not bring it to the notice of the state government?" The bench observed that if repugnancy was a concern for the governor, it should have been communicated to the state government immediately.
The court also questioned why bills reserved for Presidential consideration were not communicated properly.
Defense Argument:
Attorney General R Venkataramani, representing the governor, argued that in seven cases, the President had withheld assent and communicated this to the state government. He contended that withholding assent meant a refusal to approve the bill. However, the bench was skeptical of this interpretation, suggesting that it could render Articles 200 and 201ineffective. These articles grant the governor the power to approve or withhold approval of state bills or to recommend changes.
Ongoing Hearing:
The court is hearing two petitions filed by the Tamil Nadu government regarding ongoing confrontations with the governor over delayed bill assent. The bench expressed concern that accepting the Attorney General's argument would imply that a governor could withhold assent without any formal communication, potentially making the process opaque.
Venkataramani defended the governor’s actions, arguing that each case is unique and denied any malafide intent. He claimed that perceived repugnancy allows a governor to refer bills to the President without detailed communication.
Legal Action:
The Tamil Nadu government approached the Supreme Court in 2023 after facing delays in the assent of 12 bills. The court questioned whether a governor could withhold assent indefinitely based on perceived repugnancy without formal communication. The bench emphasized that if the governor created an impasse, they were obligated to clear it. The court also inquired about the status of Presidential action on pending bills, noting that some had been waiting for a response for over two years.