Governor can’t withhold re-passed Bills, says SC

Governor can’t withhold re-passed Bills, says SC Court agrees with the Tamil Nadu government’s argument that the Constitution does not provide Governor Ravi the ‘discretion’ to withhold the 10 Bills it re-enacted, or refer them to the President KRISHNADAS RAJAGOPAL NEW DELHI The Supreme Court on Monday took note of the Tamil Nadu government’s argument that the Constitution does not provide Governor R.N. Ravi “discretion” to withhold the 10 Bills “re-passed” by the State Legislative Assembly. “Once they have been re-passed, these Bills are put in the same footing as Money Bills. Then you [the Governor] cannot reject...,” Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, heading a three-judge Bench, remarked. The court was reacting to arguments raised by the State, represented by senior advocates A.M. Singhvi, Mukul Rohatgi, P. Wilson and advocate Sabarish Subramanian, that the first proviso of Article 200 states: “If the Bill is passed again by the House or Houses with or without amendment and presented to the Governor for assent, the Governor shall not withhold assent therefrom”. But, at one point, the Chief Justice asked whether the Governor had to mandatorily send the Bills back to the House for re-consideration after withholding assent. “Can he simpliciter say ‘I am withholding assent’ without sending the Bills back to the House?” Justice Chandrachud asked. Mr. Singhvi responded that returning the Bills back to the House was a necessary corollary to the withdrawal of assent. The court also acknowledged the State’s submission that the Governor, having withheld assent and sent back the Bills once, cannot refer the reiterated Bills to the President. The State had complained to the court that the Governor was holding the Bills back indefinitely, defeating the rights of the people of Tamil Nadu to the benefits of crucial laws passed by the House. The Governor had withheld assent and “returned” the Bills to the House on November 13, the State said. The Tamil Nadu Assembly had convened a Special Session on November 18 to re-pass the Bills and send them back to the Governor for approval. “The Governor returned the Bills with just one line ‘I withhold consent’. What was the Assembly supposed to do? So, the House re-passed the Bills... The Governor has to return the Bills with a message spelling out reasons why he has returned the Bills,” Mr. Rohatgi pointed out. “Our order issuing notice to the petition [filed by Tamil Nadu] was on November 10... The Governor took action only after we issued notice in the matter. Why should Governors want parties to move the Supreme Court to start taking steps?” Chief Justice asked Attorney-General R. Venkataramani. Mr. Venkataramani submitted that 182 Bills were given to the Governor by the House for approval. Of this, 152 have been approved, five were withdrawn by the government, and nine reserved by the Governor for referral to the President. The Governor had withheld consent on 10 proposed laws and five, which were received in October 2023, were under process. He sought a deferment of the hearing in order to give the Governor time to consider the re-passed Bills. The court scheduled the next hearing on December 1. Meanwhile, the 35-page note submitted by the Attorney General in the Supreme Court said there was “no transparency in the entire selection process” related to the appointment of members of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. Mr. Venkataramani’s note on behalf of the Governor said the latter “found that the person sought to be appointed as Chairman will have less than a year in office” and one of the persons recommended as a member was suspended for maladministration by the college where he was working.