Manas Dasgupta
NEW DELHI, Feb 6: The Tamil Nadu governor RN Ravi, who is fighting a running battle with the DMK government in the state, also received flaks from the Supreme Court on Thursday with the top court saying that it did not find any sense in the governor in indefinitely withholding consent to 12 bills for over three years.
The court asked the governor what were so “gross” he found in those bills, most of them related to higher education and the appointment process of Vice-Chancellors in State Universities, that he did not allow them to come into force by withholding his consent for over three years.
A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan recapped the trajectory of 12 Bills for the benefit of the Governor, whose office was represented by Attorney General of India R. Venkataramani. Justice Pardiwala said the Governor’s submissions “did not make any sense.”
“You [Governor] are saying ‘I withhold consent’, but at the same time, I will not ask them to re-consider the Bills. This would only frustrate the procedure under Article 200… The Governor seems to have adopted his own procedure here,” Justice Pardiwala addressed the A-G.
The court asked the A-G to produce contemporaneous records from the Governor’s office to show the latter had found specific loopholes, reasons and deficiencies in the Bills that compelled him to keep them pending for years and finally left him no choice but to refer them to the President in 2023.
Justice Pardiwala observed that these Bills were sent by the State Legislature for consent to the Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution between January 2020 and April 2023. The Governor had sat on them indefinitely. Ultimately, when the State approached the top court against the Governor’s perceived inaction in November 2023, the latter had quickly referred two of the Bills to the President and proceeded to withhold consent on the remaining 10.
The judge said the 10 Bills were re-passed by the Tamil Nadu Assembly in a Special Session and sent to the Governor again for assent. This time, the Governor had proceeded to refer all 10 Bills to the President for consideration. The President had subsequently assented to one Bill, rejected seven and not considered the remaining two proposed laws.
The State government, represented by senior advocates Rakesh Dwivedi, Mukul Rohatgi, A.M. Singhvi and P. Wilson, argued the Governor’s conduct was that of a political opponent. Once the Bills were re-passed, the Governor had no option but to give consent. Here, the Governor had countermanded the will of the people expressed through their elected representatives. His actions suited that of a “constitutional despot,” Mr Dwivedi submitted.
Mr Venkataramani said the State, through its submissions, was portraying the Governor as an “insignificant” authority occupying a “small place” in a constitutional democracy. “We do not want to undermine the powers of the Governor… But, tell us, what is that something gross the Governor found that he kept these pending for three and odd years?” Justice Pardiwala asked.
Mr Venkataramani argued the Governor had only expressed his wish to withhold consent. He had not sent back the Bills to the government. But the State Assembly had misconceived or second-guessed his intentions and re-enacted the 10 Bills. The top law officer said the Governor found the Bills contained provisions giving the State government more powers, both as an authority over university appointments and over the Vice-Chancellors. Higher education was a subject in the Concurrent List.
“He did not want to give a final verdict on these Bills, as their provisions had a national impact. So, he referred them to the President… A Governor, who is also the Chancellor of universities, has to act with the highest responsibility,” the A-G submitted. Mr Venkataramani said the State’s petition in the Supreme Court was an attempt to validate these Bills indirectly.
Justice Pardiwala said the Governor’s submissions “did not make any sense.” “They [State of Tamil Nadu] have alleged not only malice in law against you [Governor] but also malice in fact,” Justice Pardiwala told the A-G.
Mr Dwivedi said if the Governor’s action of withholding consent was proved wrong, the subsequent decision of the President would also fail by default. This would leave the Governor no option but to follow the procedure of Article 200 and give his consent to the Bills.
