Supreme court grills Tamil Nadu Governor: What was he doing for 3 years on pending bills?

The Supreme Court’s recent scrutiny of Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi’s actions, specifically regarding delays in clearing bills, has brought to light critical questions surrounding the Governor’s authority. The court, also addressing similar pleas from Punjab and Kerala, raised a fundamental legal query: Can a Governor withhold assent on a bill without sending it back to the Assembly?

This legal examination follows Ravi’s recent return of ten bills, including two passed by the previous AIADMK government. In response, the Tamil Nadu Assembly hastily convened a special session to re-adopt all ten bills, subsequently sending them back to the Governor for approval. The court, acknowledging this development, adjourned the matter until December 1, expressing interest in the Governor’s response.

Also Read: To get father’s job, 25-year-old Jharkhand plans his murder; arrested

The court emphasized that once bills are re-passed, they hold the same significance as money bills. The Tamil Nadu government, led by the DMK, has accused the BJP-appointed Governor of intentionally obstructing the state’s progress by delaying bill approvals and undermining the elected administration. The DMK sought a specific timeframe for bill clearance, emphasizing that the Governor’s actions were undermining the will of the people.

Among the pending bills is one curbing the Governor’s authority to appoint Vice Chancellors of state-run universities and another seeking the prosecution of ex-ministers from the AIADMK.

Also Read: Pakistan forces Afghan migrants to leave, community fears losing homes-business

During the hearing, legal arguments ensued between advocates representing the Tamil Nadu government and the Solicitor-General defending Governor Ravi. The former contended that the Governor violated the Constitution by withholding bills without providing reasons, while the Solicitor-General argued that the Governor is not merely a technical supervisor.

The court recognized that Ravi had given assent to a majority of bills presented to him but questioned his withholding of specific ones. Referring to Article 200, the court outlined the Governor’s three options: assent, withholding, or sending the bill to the President of India, with the proviso allowing the Governor to send it back to the state government for reconsideration.

Also Read: Viral: Anushka Sharma consoles Husband Virat Kohli after World Cup final defeat, Pic Inside

The court’s overarching question remained: Can the Governor withhold assent without returning the bill to the Assembly?

This legal tussle mirrors similar disputes in Kerala and Punjab, where the Supreme Court has intervened. Governor Banwarilal Purohit of Punjab was cautioned by the court for “playing with fire,” and in the Kerala case, responses were sought from the center and Governor Arif Mohammed Khan. The evolving legal saga underscores the delicate balance of powers between elected governments and appointed Governors in India.