SC questions governor's refusal to grant assent to TN bills, raises concerns over constitutionality of actions

The Supreme Court on Monday asked whether the three provisions of Article 200 of the Constitution - granting assent to bills, referring them to the President for reconsideration or returning them to the legislative assembly for reconsideration - are not "defeated" by the governor's refusal to grant assent to the bills passed by the state legislature.

The court raised the question during the resumed hearing of a plea filed by the Tamil Nadu government, challenging the actions and "inactions" of governor RN Ravi.

A bench comprising justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan asked attorney general R Venkataramani, representing the governor, "How could the governor send re-passed bills to the President?"


The bench also asked AG to show "one communication at the end of the governor" through which he conveyed his reservations to the state government. "Today all the time it has been conveyed to us that this is what weighed with the governor. Why was it not brought to the notice of the state government? The government perhaps may have rectified the defects (if) pointed out by the governor," justice Pardiwala verbally remarked. After detailed hearing the bench reserved its judgement.

The bench reiterated that if the state government "is oblivious of what's weighing with the governor what would it (state government) reconsider?" The bench also asked whether a governor has any "discretion" over withholding his/her assent to bills passed by the state legislative assembly.

The bench asked if it is "incumbent on the governor to seek aid and advice of council of ministers before referring the bills to the President?"