On February 4, the Supreme Court heard two petitions filed by the Tamil Nadu government against Governor Dr. R.N. Ravi for withholding assent to bills and delaying their approval. Some of these bills aimed at removing the Governor from the position of Chancellor of various universities. These bills were passed by the Legislative Assembly between 2020 and 2023 and submitted for the Governor’s approval.
According to the Tamil Nadu government, several crucial decisions are pending approval from the Governor. These include the premature release of prisoners, sanction for prosecution, and the appointment of members to the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. These files were submitted between April 2022 and May 2023.
Read Also:- Supreme Court's Stern Remark on Madhya Pradesh Government's Delay in Filing Petitions
"On November 13, 2023, the Governor refused assent to 10 bills, following which the Legislative Assembly reconvened on November 18, 2023, and re-enacted those bills."
While the matter was still under judicial review, on November 28, the Governor referred some bills to the President, despite having earlier withheld assent. This move prompted serious concerns from the Supreme Court regarding the Governor’s prolonged inaction.
Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Abhishek Manu Singhvi represented the Tamil Nadu government in the case. Rohatgi argued that once a bill is re-enacted by the Assembly, the Governor must give assent and cannot refer it to the President.
"If the Governor fails to act, the entire democratic system collapses," he stated.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Directs Assam Government to Expedite Deportation of 63 Declared Foreigners
Singhvi contended that this was a case of the Governor simply "doing nothing." As per Article 200, the Governor must either grant assent or refer the bill to the President at the first instance—not as an afterthought. Once the bill is reconsidered and sent back to the Governor, he has "no option but to grant assent."
Justice J.B. Pardiwala questioned whether the Governor could still reject a bill even after it had been re-enacted by the Legislative Assembly. Rohatgi responded that the Governor had no choice but to approve it since legislative supremacy must be upheld.
"One individual, no matter how high his position, must adhere to the Constitution," Rohatgi stated.
Singhvi further argued that the Governor had no legitimate basis for withholding assent. He described it as "an unconstitutional act," asserting that the Governor was trying to create his own set of rules, which is legally unacceptable.
Attorney General of India R. Venkataramani defended the Governor, arguing that the Governor had not sent the bills back for reconsideration but had merely withheld assent. He insisted that the Governor's action did not fall under the first provision of Article 200.
Justice Pardiwala raised concerns about the Governor’s rationale, asking:
"Why is the Governor unable to take a decision and referring the bills to the President?"
He also stated that if no resolution was reached, the court would decide the matter based on legal principles.
Read Also:- Supreme Court: Appeals Under NIA Act Cannot Be Dismissed Due to Delay Beyond 90 Days
The Tamil Nadu government has accused the Governor of deliberately stalling the legislative process. The government also challenged the Governor’s unilateral formation of search-and-selection committees for appointing Vice Chancellors in state universities, calling it unconstitutional.
The court will continue to hear the matter, where Attorney General R. Venkataramani will further clarify the Governor’s stance.
"If no resolution is found within the next 24 hours, the case will be decided on its legal merits,"
Justice Pardiwala remarked at the end of the hearing.
