New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday expressed disapproval of Governor R.N. Ravi as it resumed hearing the Tamil Nadu government’s appeal against the delay in passing 10 bills previously cleared by the assembly.
An apex court bench comprising Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra asked what the Governor had been doing for three years as the oldest of the bills was pending since January 2020.
During a previous hearing on 10 November, the top court had also observed that the Governor’s inaction was a “matter of serious concern”.
Ravi had returned the bills to the Assembly three days after the court’s rap, withholding his assent to all of them.
On Monday, the justices questioned Attorney General R. Venkataramani, who was appearing for Ravi. “Mr Attorney, the Governor says he has disposed of these bills on 13 November. Our concern is that our order was passed on 10 November. These bills have been pending since January 2020.
“It means that the Governor took the decision after the court issued notice. What was the Governor doing for three years? Why should the Governor wait for the parties to approach the Supreme Court?” the court asked.
Vankataramani replied that reconsideration was required as the dispute pertained to those bills which sought to strip the governor’s powers on the appointment of vice-chancellors in state universities.
But the court noted that the oldest bill was pending since January 2020 and the rest were passed by the Tamil Nadu Assembly between 2020 and 2023.
The Attorney General also argued that Governor Ravi had assumed office in November 2021, which elicited a sharper response from the judges.
“The issue is not whether any particular Governor delayed but whether in general there has been a delay in exercising Constitutional functions,” the bench said.
The judges were told that the assembly had “re-passed” those same bills in a special session last Saturday after the Governor returned them. The court adjourned the hearing till 1 December as it will wait for Ravi’s next step.
Senior advocate A.M. Singhvi, who appeared for Tamil Nadu, said 15 bills were now pending before the Governor, including the 10 “re-passed” by the Assembly.
Also appearing for the state, senior advocate P. Wilson argued if the Governor was allowed to withhold bills indefinitely, governance in states would be paralysed.
Incidentally, in the over two years of being Governor, Ravi and the DMK government have had several standoffs over various issues, including delay in approving bills.
On 31 October, the DMK government approached the Supreme Court, stating it was facing a “constitutional deadlock” as Ravi had not signed “remission orders, day-to-day files, appointment orders, approving recruitment orders, granting approval to prosecute Ministers…”
The state said the Governor had brought the entire administration to a grinding halt and created an “adversarial attitude by not cooperating with the State administration”.
According to Article 200 of the Constitution, a Governor can take three decisions once a bill is passed by an assembly. He can give his assent, he can return the bill for further consideration by the government or send it to the President for reconsideration. The governor cannot withhold assent if the same bill is passed again by the House.