The Supreme Court on Friday heard arguments on Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi’s decision to withhold assent to multiple Bills passed by the State legislature, particularly those related to the appointment of Vice Chancellors in State universities.
A Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan examined whether the Governor had the authority to withhold assent instead of outright rejecting a Bill deemed repugnant.
Attorney General Defends Governor’s Actions
Representing the Governor, Attorney General (AG) R. Venkataramani argued that when a State Bill is repugnant to a central law, there is no obligation to return it to the legislature for reconsideration. The requirement to return a Bill, he said, applies only when defects in the Bill are correctable, excluding cases of repugnancy.
The Court then sought clarification on Article 201, which states that when a Governor reserves a Bill for Presidential consideration, the President must either assent to or withhold assent. The Bench asked whether the President could outright decline a Bill on grounds of repugnancy, to which the AG responded, “Yes, she can.”
However, the Court questioned why the Bill was withheld rather than outright declined if it was truly repugnant. The AG explained that withholding assent effectively prevents the law from taking effect, but noted that the President could invoke a proviso allowing for further action.
The Court pointed out that if the AG’s argument was accepted, Tamil Nadu’s claims about the Governor’s lack of discretionary power to withhold Bills would collapse.
Tamil Nadu’s Stand: Governor Not a “Super Legislature”
The Tamil Nadu government has challenged the Governor’s actions in court, arguing that his role is purely recommendatory under the Constitution. The State’s counsel contended that the Governor cannot arbitrarily withhold Bills, stating, “He is not a super government or a super legislature.”
During an earlier hearing, the Court had criticized Governor Ravi for “devising his own procedure” in withholding Bills, emphasizing that he must act within constitutional limits.
After hearing arguments from the Governor’s side, the Court scheduled the next hearing for Monday, February 10.
