Manas Dasgupta
NEW DELHI, Feb 10: The Supreme Court which had expressed serious concern over the governor – government strife in Tamil Nadu creating “constitutional deadlock,” on Monday questioned the “long silence” of the governor RN Ravi spanning into months and years in clearing the bills passed by the peoples’ representatives in the state Assembly.
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 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. The court reserved the case for judgment.
Mr Venkataramani 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 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 apex court had in November 2023, had expressed concern over the :constitutional deadlock” created by Mr Ravi by inexplicably delaying or even failing to consider and give assent to 12 crucial bills passed by the state Assembly, mostly related to higher education, and stymieing day-to-day governance. The state government had submitted that there was “not a word” from the Governor on any of these files or Bills, which related to subjects from public health, higher education, etc.
The court, in its short order, highlighted that the Article 200 of the Constitution mandated the Governor to act “as soon as possible” when Bills, passed by the State Legislature, were presented to him for declaration of assent. The then Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud orally observed that the Governor could either give his assent, withhold assent in which case, if the Bills were not Money Bills, return the Bills to the House suggesting modifications/amendments or refer the proposed laws to the President. The court said the Governor could not just sit on them indefinitely.
“The Bills have been pending since January 2020 till now. We have been begging him to consider them. We have been begging him to grant sanction for prosecution. We have been begging him for remission… He is doing nothing,” Mr Singhvi said.
The State said the Governor had positioned himself as a political rival to the legitimately elected government. The Governor’s inactions had caused an impasse between the constitutional head of the State and the elected government of the State. The Governor was toying away with the citizen’s mandate, the petition said.
Tamil Nadu is not the lone state to approach the apex court against their respective governors. A battery of non-BJP ruled States have approached the Supreme Court accusing their Governors of using a non-existent discretion to unreasonably delay the passing of crucial Bills into law. The Bills in limbo cover sectors such as public health, higher education, Lokayukta and cooperative societies.
Tamil Nadu has accused Governor R.N. Ravi of toying with the citizens’ mandate by sitting on the Bills by neither assenting nor returning them. Kerala, in its separate petition, said that eight proposed laws passed by its Legislative Assembly were pending with the Governor, not for months, but years. Of the eight, three Bills were waiting for the Governor’s word for over two years.
Punjab complained that seven of its Bills were stuck with the Governor since June, threatening to bring the administration to a “grinding halt.” The Supreme Court had to intervene in April for the Telangana Governor to clear Bills pending since September 2022, compelling advocate Dushyant Dave, appearing for the State, to submit that legislatures in Opposition-ruled States were at the mercy of the Governors, who had become a law unto themselves.
Governors did have a discretion to return Bills but there is no provision for the governors acting on discretion. The first proviso of Article 200 says it should be “as soon as possible.” The Constitution is silent on what exactly this phrase means. The Supreme Court has interpreted “as soon as possible” in the proviso to mean “as early as practicable without avoidable delay” in its 1972 judgment in Durga Pada Ghosh versus State of West Bengal. Justice (now retired) Rohinton F. Nariman, in his 2020 judgment in the Keisham Megha Chandra Singh case, said a ‘reasonable time’ would mean three months.
The States have urged the court to interpret the phrase in the proviso and fix a time limit by which Governors should assent or return a Bill. The 1988 Sarkaria Commission report on Centre-State relations had suggested consultation with the Governor while drafting the Bill and fixing a deadline for its disposal.
Kerala has asked the Supreme Court to form a seven-judge Bench to review a five-judge Bench judgment in the 1962 Purushothaman Nambudiri versus State of Kerala case which held the view that Article 200 did not provide “for a time limit within which the Governor….. should come to a decision on the Bill referred to him for his assent.” The State said the court did not consider the possibility of Governors holding back Bills for an indefinite time.
