'What was TN Guv doing for three years?': SC questions delay by R N Ravi on pending bills

Taking note of the details of the case and after questioning the delay on pending bills in Tamil Nadu, the SC bench fixed the matter for further hearing on December 1.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday questioned the delay by Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi in taking decisions on bills submitted for assent as early as in January 2020, asking what he had been doing for three years.

"Why should the Governor wait for parties to approach the Supreme Court? What was the Governor doing for three years," a bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra asked the Attorney General R Venkataramani.

The bench pointed out the court had passed the order on November 10, and these bills have been pending since January 2020.

"It means that the Governor took the decision after the court issued notice," the bench said.

The AG submitted before the bench that the dispute was related only to those bills which seek to divest the Governor's powers—relating to the appointment of Vice-Chancellors in state universities—and that some consideration is required since it is an important issue.

He also said the instant matter should not taken as a sanction on the validity of those bills. He submitted that the Governor is not merely a technical supervisor.

Senior advocates A M Singhvi, P Wilson, and Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the Tamil Nadu government, contended that the Article 200 does not mean that the Governor withhold bills, and there has to be a reason attached to it after due application of mind.

"The Governor cannot just say that 'I withhold assent'," they said.

Singhvi said the principle is that it equates to a money bill after one return.

The CJI observed that the Governor under the substantive part of Article 200, has three courses of actions—he can assent, withhold, reserve the bills for the President.

“When he withholds assent, does he necessarily need to send it for reconsideration? The proviso says ‘may’...,” the bench noted.

Singhvi said "as soon as possible" and the phrase is very clear.

"When you withhold assent, you have to send it back to the House or say that I'm sending it to President,” Singhvi said.

"Does he have a pocket veto," he asked.

The bench pointed out that the oldest of the pending bills was sent to the Governor in January 2020, and noted the dates on which the ten bills were sent to the Governor's office, ranged between 2020 to 2023.

The AG said that the present Governor R N Ravi assumed office only in November 2021. The bench replied that the issue is not whether any particular Governor delayed but whether in general there has been a delay in exercising constitutional functions.

Wilson submitted that if the Governor is allowed to withhold bills indefinitely, governance will become paralysed and the Constitution never envisaged such a power for the governor.

The apex court was informed that after it issued notice on the petition, the Governor stated that he had "withheld the assent" on certain bills, and following that, the legislative assembly convened a special session and readopted those very same bills on November 18.

The bench was informed that now 15 bills are pending before the Governor, including ten bills which have been "re-passed" by the assembly.

The bench further asked if bills that are passed again in the state assembly can be returned to the President by the Governor.

The Tamil Nadu counsel said such a course is not open to the Governor after the bill has been passed again.

The bench noted that the Governor's office has received altogether 181 bills, out of which assent has been granted for 152 bills, and five bills were withdrawn by the government itself and nine bills have been reserved for the assent of the President and assent has been withheld on ten bills. Five bills, which were received in October 2023, are under consideration, it noted.

The bench fixed the matter for further hearing on December 1.

In its plea, the Tamil Nadu government claimed the Governor has positioned himself as a “political rival” to the legitimately elected government.

It listed out 54 pending files related to premature release of convicts, four files related to sanction for prosecution and 12 Bills, including the one pending since January 9, 2020.