Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi.
Credit: PTI File Photo
There is no certainty that the reconsideration and passage by the Tamil Nadu Assembly of 10 bills that were returned by Governor R N Ravi will end the crisis created by the Governor delaying his assent to the bills.
The Governor had sat on the bills without giving any reasons and for unreasonable periods of time, ignoring requests from the government for assent and inviting adverse comments from the Supreme Court.
Of the 10, two bills were from the time of the previous Assembly, and others were passed by the present Assembly.
They concerned the power of the state government to appoint university vice-chancellors, prohibition of online gambling, etc. All of them were within the legislative powers of the Assembly and the Governor was bound to give assent to them.
The Supreme Court had expressed serious concern over the deadlock created by the Governor’s refusal to act on the bills.
The court’s concern did not have a positive impact on the Governor. He returned 10 bills en masse without mentioning the grounds that he had for withholding assent to them earlier or for returning them thus now.
His action does not seem to be driven by conviction but by pique over the court’s concern.
The Supreme Court had, in its 2016 Nabam Rebia judgement, said that the Governor cannot withhold assent for a bill indefinitely but must return it to the Assembly with a message and this could include his recommendation for amendments.
The bulk return of bills by Governor Ravi is a violation of the spirit of this judgement. The Assembly held a special session last week and adopted the bills again.
According to Article 200, the Governor has to mandatorily give assent to the bills now, but there is no remedy if the Governor withholds his assent again.
Considering the history of confrontation between Governor Ravi and the state government and the unreasonable extent to which he has gone in the case of the bills and on other issues, it is too early to conclude that the crisis has been resolved.
The Governor has invoked non-existing powers, interfered with the administration and has conducted himself as a parallel centre of power in the state.
This could only have been a conscious and deliberate attempt to undermine the government.
In doing so, he has undermined the Constitution, the democratic process, and the power and authority of the Supreme Court, too.
In response to the Governor’s unusual behaviour, the Supreme Court has taken the unusual, but right, step of questioning why the Governor had not decided on the bills, some of them submitted for assent nearly four years ago, until the court had issued notice in the matter.
The Governor’s behaviour, designed to cause confrontation between the institutions of democracy, is unacceptable. He must be recalled forthwith.