A view of Supreme Court. The court still held out hope that the freeze in ties could be resolved over a cup of coffee before the scheduled hearing on February 6.
| Photo Credit: SUSHIL KUMAR VERMA
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (February 4, 2025) promised to resolve the tug-of-war between the Tamil Nadu government and Governor R.N. Ravi “in the spirit of the Constitution”, and in the “interest of one and all”, even while holding out hope that the freeze in ties could be resolved over a cup of coffee before the scheduled court hearing on February 6.
The clash of views between the Governor and the M.K. Stalin-led government is over myriad issues, ranging from delay in giving assent to key Bills on higher education issues, pending sanction of prosecutions, remission of prisoners, government orders, and constitution of search committees for the appointment of Vice-Chancellors (V-Cs).
“The Governor’s table is empty. There is nothing on it at all,” Attorney General R. Venkataramani, appearing for the Governor’s office, told a Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan.
He was referring to the Governor’s action of referring 10 re-enacted Bills, largely concerning higher education in the State, to the President on November 18, 2023. The President had subsequently assented to one Bill, rejected seven, and did not consider the remaining two proposed laws.
The State, represented by senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, A.M. Singhvi and P. Wilson, and advocate Sabarish Subramanian, argued that the decision of the Governor to reserve the case for the President’s consideration was “ex-facie illegal, without jurisdiction and in gross violation of the Constitution”.
“The grant of assent to the Bill by Her Excellency, the Hon’ble President of India is unconstitutional and without jurisdiction. Instead, Union government should have advised Her Excellency to return the 10 Bills back to the Hon’ble Governor as it is completely in gross violation of the principles of Constitution under the first proviso to Article 200 [Governor’s assent to Bills],” the State government said.
Justice Pardiwala queried whether there were any specific considerations that ought to weigh on the Governor for referring a Bill to the President and, subsequently, how the President would look into a Bill sent by the Governor.
Mr. Singhvi, taking the court through Article 200, said a Governor has three options when a Bill is referred to him for assent by the Legislature — he must give assent or withhold assent or reserve the Bill for the consideration of the President.
In case the assent is withheld, if it is not a Money Bill, the proposed law must be returned to the State Legislature “as soon as possible”, with comments. If the Bill is reiterated by the Legislature, the Governor has no option but to grant assent, he said.
Mr. Singhvi said the only time a Governor could refer a Bill to the President is when the proposed law threatens to derogate or diminish the constitutional powers of the State High Court.
“The Governor cannot act like a super Chief Minister. There is a reason why Governors are not elected. Dr. Ambedkar said there cannot be two swords in the same scabbard,” Mr. Singhvi said.
He said crucial Bills, before being referred to the President, were delayed by the Governor for “days, months, years”. “The Governor cannot withhold perpetually. The first proviso to Article 200 requires the Governor to return the Bill ‘as soon as possible’,” he said.
Mr. Wilson told the Bench that the Governor and the Chief Minister did talk over a cup of coffee in the past. The Chief Minister had also written to the Governor urging him to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, he said.
“The Governor, however, acted on his own and referred the Bills to the President. That is clearly unconstitutional,” Mr. Wilson said.
Published – February 05, 2025 05:51 am IST
Source:https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/will-resolve-governor-tn-govt-tussle-in-the-spirit-of-the-constitution-says-sc/article69180467.ece