The Supreme Court on Monday (February 10, 2024) questioned the long “silence” of the Tamil Nadu Governor, spanning months and years, to the State’s Bills, culminating in his withholding of consent and the reference of at least 10 Bills to the President for consideration.
Addressing Attorney General of India R. Venkataramani, who appeared for Governor R.N. Ravi, Justice J.B. Pardiwala said the Governor definitely had “something in his mind” when he withheld consent to the Bills sent to him for assent by the State government. Yet, the Governor did not communicate what was irking him about the proposed laws.
“So, he goes quiet for one or two years… He withholds consent… Then suddenly he says I have referred them to the President,” Justice Pardiwala, accompanied by Justice R. Mahadevan on the Bench, observed.
Mr. Venkataramani said the Governor had earlier communicated to the State his objections regarding the constitution of the search-cum-selection committee for the appointment of Vice-Chancellors in State universities. The Governor-Chancellor had sought the inclusion of the University Grants Commission (UGC) Chairperson’s nominee in the search-cum-selection committee. The State Bills, passed subsequently, sought to remove the Governor, who was also ex-officio Chancellor of these universities, from the appointment process of Vice-Chancellors.
“Then why did you keep silent about the Bills? Why did you not tell the State government about your reservations if you found them repugnant?… They (the State) would have probably agreed with you…” Justice Pardiwala reacted to the submission from the top law officer.
The judge, turning Mr. Venkataramani’s submissions that the Governor had earlier raised objections about the Vice-Chancellors’ appointment process on its head, said that then the Legislative Assembly’s reconsideration of the 10 Bills in its special sitting on November 18, 2023 would not have been just an “empty formality”.
“The Assembly would have known what his objections were,” Justice Pardiwala remarked.
Mr. Venkatraramani asked if the Governor had acted outside his jurisdiction by withholding assent and referring the Bills to the President after finding them repugnant.
Senior advocate A.M. Singhvi, representing the Tamil Nadu government with senior advocates Rakesh Dwivedi and P. Wilson, said “good governance required the Governor to communicate reasons for withholding consent”.
Mr. Singhvi said that once the Governor withholds consent and returns the Bills, with or without giving reasons, it was within the powers of the State Legislature to re-consider the Bills under the first proviso of Article 200 of the Constitution. In this case, the Tamil Nadu Assembly re-examined the Bills and sent them again to the Governor for assent.
At one point, Justice Mahadevan asked why the State took only five days for re-passing the 10 Bills. The Governor had withheld consent on November 13, 2023.
Mr. Singhvi said the State Legislature was the “boss” in the Constitutional sense under Article 200, the Governor had no discretion under the provision.
Mr. Dwivedi argued that any other interpretation of Article 200 and its provisos would mean a return to the “imperial age”.
“The State is bound to follow the first proviso whether or not the Governor gives reasons for withholding consent… Any other interpretation would go against the fundamental spirit of the Constitution. The Governor cannot tell the Legislature ‘do not reconsider until I tell you’,” Mr. Singhvi submitted.
The court reserved the case for judgment.
