The Supreme Court on Thursday began deliberations on the contentious issue between the Tamil Nadu government and Governor R N Ravi regarding the withholding of assent to bills passed by the state legislature. The court framed eight pivotal questions that focus on the governor’s discretionary powers and the constitutional provisions involved.
Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, overseeing the case, initiated the hearing by outlining the questions aimed at unraveling the complexities of the governor’s role in the legislative process. Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi represented the Tamil Nadu government, presenting arguments on the extent of the governor’s authority.
One of the central questions posed by the bench was whether a governor could repeatedly withhold assent to a bill if it is passed by the legislative assembly multiple times. This inquiry probes into the limits of what is colloquially known as the “pocket veto” — an informal term for the governor’s ability to indirectly veto legislation by simply not signing it.
Another question seeks clarity on whether the governor’s discretion to refer a bill to the President is restricted to specific matters or if it encompasses broader issues. This is pivotal in understanding the checks and balances intended by the constitution between state and federal authorities.
Further, the bench is set to explore the constitutional implications of a governor’s decision to present a bill to the president instead of granting or withholding assent, as outlined in Article 200 of the Constitution. This article empowers the governor to either approve, withhold approval, or seek modifications to bills passed by the state legislature.
The court also inquired about the obligations of the governor after a bill is returned to the legislature for reconsideration and subsequently passed again. This raises significant questions about the legislative process and the balance of power between the state legislature and the governor.
Attorney General R Venkataramani is expected to provide additional insights later in the day, as the bench navigates through these constitutional inquiries.
