In a significant constitutional battle, the Tamil Nadu government has approached the Supreme Court, arguing that Governor R N Ravi’s repeated refusal to grant assent to bills passed by the state legislature represents a failure of the democratic system in India. The matter, underscored by a clash over gubernatorial assent, was brought before a bench comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan.
This legal confrontation stems from Governor Ravi withholding his approval for several legislative bills, some for the second time, despite their passage by the Tamil Nadu assembly. The state government contends that such actions not only stall governance but also undermine democratic principles.
During the hearing on February 4, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the Tamil Nadu government, stressed that the constitutional mandate is clear: if a bill is passed a second time by the legislature after reconsideration, the Governor must grant assent. “Withholding assent repeatedly can lead to a breakdown of our democratic structures,” Rohatgi argued before the court.
Adding to the state’s argument, Senior Advocate Abhishek Singhvi pointed out that the option for the Governor to refer the bills to the President should have been exercised initially, not subsequently. He emphasized that upon re-presentation, the Governor is constitutionally bound to assent to the bills and cannot reserve them for the President’s consideration in the second instance.
The ongoing dispute has reportedly caused considerable disruption, affecting governance and the state’s populace. The court noted these concerns, expressing its intention to resolve the matter expediently.
The case was left unresolved as the hearing concluded for the day, with the matter scheduled to continue on February 6. The bench plans to hear further arguments from Tamil Nadu’s counsel before listening to Attorney General R Venkataramani, who represents Governor Ravi.
The roots of this legal impasse date back to 2020, with the Tamil Nadu assembly re-adopting 10 bills initially returned by Governor Ravi. The Supreme Court, in previous sessions, urged both the Chief Minister M K Stalin and Governor Ravi to meet and resolve their differences to ensure the smooth operation of government functions.
The court also reviewed the governor’s overall record on bill assents, noting that while he had consented to most, he had reserved several for presidential consideration and outright withheld consent for others, impacting legislation across various sectors, including law, agriculture, and higher education.
