‘Don’t want to pass injunctive order against President, doesn’t look proper': SC on Tamil Nadu govt-Governor row

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to issue an injunctive order against President Droupadi Murmu to act upon the bills sent by the Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi after the state Assembly re-enacted those legislations.

The top court, however, asked Attorney General R Venkatramani to look into the matter before posting the plea by the Tamil Nadu government against inaction by the Governor on bills passed by the state legislature for hearing next month.

A bench of Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra asked the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M K Stalin and the Governor to have a dialogue to resolve the deadlock over the passing of the bills.

The writ petition filed by Tamil Nadu alleged delay by Governor R N Ravi for delay in granting assent to the bills passed by the legislative assembly.

The bench said the business of the government and the governance have to go on.

Senior advocate A M Singhvi, for the Tamil Nadu government, asked the court to maintain the status quo so that the President does not act on the bills in the meantime.

"Let us not have a precipitation by saying now, next time we come the President has passed or rejected. Let there be a status quo,” he said.

On this, the bench said, "We don’t want to pass an injunctive order against the President of India. We are not passing any order. It doesn’t look proper”.

The bench, however, asked the AG to look into the matter, saying “we are trying to find out a way”.

During the hearing, Singhvi said that the matter should be adjourned till January since a detailed hearing is necessary on the constitutional question of whether the Governor can refer bills to the President after they have been re-passed by the legislature.

On the last date of the hearing, the court had observed that the Governor cannot refer the bills to the President after withholding assent over them. The apex court had pointed out that the governor only had three options as per Article 200 - granting assent, withholding assent, or referring to the President- and that after exercising any of these options, he could not then exercise another option.

On Wednesday, Singhvi insisted that this is purely a constitutional question which this court has to decide.

"We will do what we have to do in this matter but in the meantime why don't they meet? There must be some channel open between the CM and the Governor. At least let them start talking to each other,” the bench said.

The bench posted the matter for further hearing in January 2024.

On December 1, the apex court was informed that the Tamil Nadu Governor had referred the 10 bills re-adopted by the assembly to President Droupadi Murmu.