SC reserves judgment on Tamil Nadu govt vs governor R.N. Ravi case

The Supreme Court on Monday reserved judgment on writ petitions filed by the Tamil Nadu government challenging governor Dr R.N. Ravi's decision to withhold assent to 12 Bills, some of which have been pending since January 2020. Following a special state assembly session in which these Bills were re-enacted, the governor referred several of them to the President for reconsideration.

A bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan identified various Constitutional issues related to Article 200, as well as factual questions that emerged over four days of hearings.

During a hearing on 10 February 2024, the Supreme Court had questioned the prolonged “silence” of the Tamil Nadu governor regarding the state’s Bills, culminating in his refusal of consent and the referral of at least 10 Bills to the President.

The petitioners argued that the governor's actions — sitting on the Bills for three years before suddenly withholding assent and later reserving them for the President — violate Article 200 of the Constitution, rendering his declaration void. In contrast, the respondent contended that the governor's concerns stemmed from potential conflicts with Central laws, prompting him to act in national interest.

Justice Pardiwala addressed attorney-general R. Venkataramani, representing the governor, suggesting that the governor must have had specific concerns when he withheld consent. However, he noted that the governor had not communicated these concerns to the state. “He goes quiet for one or two years... then suddenly refers them to the President,” Justice Pardiwala observed.

Venkataramani cited previous communication regarding the appointment of vice-chancellors to state universities as evidence of the governor's engagement. The governor-chancellor had requested the inclusion of a nominee from the University Grants Commission in the search committee. The subsequent Bills aimed to remove the governor from the vice-chancellor appointment process.

Justice Pardiwala questioned why the governor did not voice his reservations about the Bills sooner, noting that had he done so, the assembly's reconsideration of the bills would not have seemed an “empty formality”.

The debate extended to whether the governor acted outside his jurisdiction by withholding assent and referring the bills to the President. Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the Tamil Nadu government, asserted that good governance requires the governor to provide reasons for withholding consent.

The petitioners interpreted Article 200 as allowing three options: assent, withholding assent, or reserving the Bill for Presidential assent. They argued that withholding assent must be accompanied by a requirement for the assembly to reconsider the Bills. The attorney-general, however, maintained that the governor has four options and that he acted within his rights by returning the Bills without calling for reconsideration.

A factual issue raised by the Court was whether the Bills were officially returned to the assembly or merely communicated as withheld. Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi clarified that the files containing the Bills were sent to the House, but it remained unclear if they were returned.

The discussion then turned to the governor's ability to refer Bills to the President. Singhvi argued that this should be the first option, while the attorney-general contended that the governor could send them to the President if he deemed them repugnant. Dwivedi referenced the historical context of Article 200, indicating that the Constitution's framers intentionally limited the governor's discretion to uphold the principles of federalism and parliamentary democracy.

The Court also inquired about the implications of withholding assent without returning the Bills. Venkataramani argued that the Bills would lapse, but Justice Pardiwala questioned how fallen Bills could then be sent to the President.

Communication emerged as a key issue. Dwivedi argued that the governor must disclose his reasons for referring the Bills back to the Assembly, while Venkataramani maintained that the governor was not obliged to do so given the apparent repugnancy.

Dwivedi further claimed that the governor's actions were unconstitutional, as he had not acted with the aid and advice of the council of ministers. He noted that any other interpretation of Article 200 could imply a regression to an “imperial age”.

Justice Mahadevan questioned the speed with which the state re-passed the bills, while Singhvi asserted that the state legislature held ultimate authority under Article 200, dismissing the notion that the governor had any discretion in this matter. “The state is bound to follow the first proviso... Any other interpretation would contradict the Constitution's fundamental spirit,” Singhvi concluded.