GOVERNOR’S ASSENT FOR BILLS: POLITY

GOVERNOR’S ASSENT FOR BILLS: POLITY

NEWS: Did Tamil Nadu Governor refer bills to President to avoid assent, asks Supreme Court

 

WHAT’S IN THE NEWS?

The Supreme Court questioned Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi over a three-year delay in assenting to 12 State Legislature Bills, primarily related to university appointments. The legal debate centers on the Governor’s discretionary powers under Article 200 and the constitutional mandate to act on re-passed Bills.

 

Detailed Analysis with Pointers

1. Constitutional Provisions on Governor’s Assent

  • Article 200: Provides the Governor with four options regarding a Bill:
    1. Grant Assent → The Bill becomes law.
    2. Withhold Assent → The Bill is rejected.
    3. Return for Reconsideration → If re-passed, the Governor must give assent.
    4. Reserve for Presidential Assent → If the Bill contradicts constitutional provisions or affects central laws.
  • Article 201: If the Governor reserves a Bill, the President can:
  • Approve or withhold assent.
  • Return it to the State Legislature. If re-passed, the President is not bound to assent.

 

2. Tamil Nadu Governor’s Actions

  • Kept 12 Bills pending for over three years.
  • Tamil Nadu Assembly re-passed 10 Bills and resent them for assent.
  • Instead of approving, the Governor referred all 10 Bills to the President.
  • Presidential action:
  • Approved one Bill.
  • Rejected seven Bills.
  • Left two Bills undecided.

 

3. Arguments in the Supreme Court

Tamil Nadu Government’s Argument

  • Governor’s actions were politically motivated and unconstitutional.
  • After a Bill is re-passed, the Governor must grant assent.
  • Described Governor’s behavior as that of a “constitutional despot.”

 

Attorney General’s Defense

  • The Governor did not return the Bills but only withheld consent.
  • The Bills sought to reduce Governor’s control over university appointments (a Concurrent List subject).
  • The Governor acted responsibly by referring them to the President due to national implications.

 

4. Supreme Court’s Observations & Judicial Precedents

  • Shamsher Singh Case (1974): Governor must act on the advice of the Council of Ministers.
  • Nabam Rebia Case (2016): Governor cannot override the elected government without valid reasons.
  • Rameshwar Prasad Case (2006): Governor’s discretion must align with constitutional principles.

 

5. Key Issues & Concerns

(i) Delay in Assent

  • Constitution mandates the Governor to act “as soon as possible.”
  • Indefinite delay → Constitutional deadlock.
  • Pocket Veto? Withholding assent without returning the Bill is an issue.

(ii) Political Controversy & Federalism

  • States accuse Governors of being influenced by the Central Government.
  • Similar conflicts seen in West Bengal, Maharashtra, Punjab.

 

6. Suggested Reforms & Way Forward

  • Time-bound decision-making: Governors should act within a stipulated period.
  • Judicial oversight: Prevents political misuse of discretionary powers.
  • Clear constitutional guidelines: Defines the Governor’s role in Bill assent.
  • Accountability mechanisms: Governor’s actions should be reviewable.

 

Source: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/did-tn-governor-refer-re-passed-bills-to-president-to-avoid-assent-asks-supreme-court/article69191627.ece