The Supreme Court on Monday expressed concerns over Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi’s prolonged silence before withholding assent to several bills re-passed by the state legislature, questioning the constitutional basis for referring these bills to the President. The bench, comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, reserved its verdict after raising several critical questions regarding the Governor’s actions.
The dispute arose after the Governor delayed assenting to 12 bills, some dating back to 2020, prompting the state government to seek judicial intervention. The situation escalated when, on November 13, 2023, Governor Ravi announced his decision to withhold assent to 10 of these bills. Subsequently, the Tamil Nadu legislative assembly convened a special session and re-passed the same bills on November 18, 2023, which the Governor then reserved for the President’s consideration on November 28, 2023.
During the hearing, Attorney General R Venkataramani, representing the Governor, argued that there is no express constitutional prohibition against the Governor sending re-passed bills to the President. The court probed into the interpretation of Article 200 of the Constitution, which delineates the Governor’s powers regarding bill assent, and Article 201, which outlines the President’s powers when bills are reserved by the Governor.
Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, representing the Tamil Nadu government, contended that misinterpreting these provisions could regress to an “imperial age,” undermining the principles of parliamentary democracy—a foundational feature of the Constitution as affirmed in the landmark 1973 Kesavananda Bharati case. Dwivedi highlighted that the Governor’s one-line communication on November 13 merely stated his withholding of assent without further explanation, which led the state assembly to re-pass the bills promptly.
The bench also inquired about the procedural consequences if the Governor withheld assent and did not return the bill to the assembly. Venkataramani responded that such a bill would fall. However, the justices questioned how such “fallen” bills could then be validly sent to the President.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Singhvi emphasized that in a parliamentary democracy, the legislative assembly holds supremacy, and under Article 200, the Governor does not have the discretion to withhold assent indefinitely. He noted that the assembly was fully within its rights to re-pass the bills after the Governor’s initial withholding of assent.
