SC faults TN Guv for delaying giving assent to bills passed by Assembly

Noting submissions from the Tamil Nadu government, the apex court framed eight key questions for adjudication of the dispute between the state government and the governor over withholding assent to the bills cleared by the Assembly.

A bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan said: "He (Mr Ravi) seems to have adopted his own procedure. He says, 'I withhold assent, but I will not ask you to reconsider the bill'. It does not make sense to keep withholding assent and not send it to the legislature, thereby frustrating the provision of Article 200."

The bench will deal with the interpretation of Article 200 of the Constitution, which empowers the governor to accord or deny assent to a bill.

The posers formulated by the bench included questions on the concept of pocket veto, the governor's authority and discretion, among others.

The first question read: "When a state legislative Assembly passes a bill and sends it to the governor for assent and the governor withholds assent, but the bill is passed again and resubmitted, does the governor have the authority to withhold it once more?"

Likewise, the second poser: “Is the discretion of the governor to present a bill to the President limited to specific matters or does it extend beyond certain prescribed subjects?”

“What is the concept of a pocket veto and does it find a place within the constitutional framework of India,” reads another question.

The bench observed the bills, on which assent was withheld, were not sent back to the government and merely declaring that the assent was being withheld without returning the bills to the Assembly would frustrate Article 200 of the Constitution.

Article 200 of the Constitution empowers the governor with the authority to approve or withhold approval of bills passed by the state legislature. The governor can also send a bill back to the legislature for reconsideration or suggest changes.

The apex court said it will deal with what considerations influenced the governor's decision to present the bill to the President instead of granting assent.

The bench said the governor took over three years before declaring he was withholding assent on certain bills and referring some to the President.

The top court asked attorney-general R. Venkataramani, who was representing the Tamil Nadu governor, why he sat over the bills for so long before saying he was withholding assent and did not send the bills back to the government.

"We will not make the governor as small as the petitioner argued (to be). We are not undermining his powers. Today, we are examining his power to withhold 12 bills duly passed by the state legislature and send two bills to the President directly and then say — I withhold assent. You have to tell us what was so gross in the bills that he did so," it said.

Mr Venkataramani said the state government's arguments tried to show the governor's post was small and insignificant.

The bench said: "We do not want to undermine the powers of the governor. We are today examining the actions of the governor."

The governor referred two bills to the President after the Assembly re-enacted them and said he was withholding assent on 10 bills, the bench noted.

The top court will resume the hearing on Friday and has asked the attorney-general to show "factually" why the governor withheld his assent.

The top court said: "Either you show us from some original files or some other documents, some contemporaneous record available with the office of the governor as to what was looked into, what was discussed and what were the lacunae."

Referring to the top court verdict in a similar case from Punjab, the bench observed the Tamil Nadu governor was withholding assent after the judgment.

The apex court verdict held governors could not veto the Assembly by sitting over bills.