Reserving 10 bills for President illegal, arbitrary: SC slam
Reserving 10 bills for President illegal, arbitrary: SC slams TN Governor R N Ravi
The Supreme Court came down heavily on Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi and said his reserving 10 bills for the consideration of President was against constitutional provisions.
NEW DELHI — The Supreme Court on Tuesday came down heavily on Tamil Nadu
Governor R N Ravi and said his reserving 10 bills for the consideration of
President was against constitutional provisions.
A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said,
"Action of Governor to reserve the 10 bills for President is illegal and
arbitrary and thus the action is set aside."
Setting aside all his actions, it added, "The 10 bills
shall be deemed to be clear from the date it was re-presented to the
Governor."
The Governor, the top court said, must be conscious to not
create "roadblocks or chokehold" the state legislature to
"thwart and break the will of the people".
The bench went on, "The members of state legislature,
having been elected by the people of the state as an outcome of the democratic
expression, are better attuned to ensure the well being of the people of the
state."
Under Article 200 of the Constitution, Governor does not
possess any discretion and has to mandatorily act on the aid and advice of the
council of ministers, the court added.
Article 200 of the Constitution deals with assent to bills.
Saying the Governor couldn't sit over the bills indefinitely
and adopt concept of absolute veto or pocket veto, the bench noted he was
"obligated to adopt" any one course of action under Article 200.
The bench said it was not open for the Governor to reserve
the bills for President's consideration after it was presented to him for the
second time.
The Governor must assent to the bills produced before him in
the second round and the only exception is in case the bill in the second round
is different from the first one, it said.
The apex court further said there was no expressly specified
time limit for the discharge of functions by the Governor under Article 200 of
the Constitution.
"Despite there being no prescribed time limits, Article
200 cannot be read in a manner which allows the Governor to not take action
upon this, which are presented to him for assent and thereby delay, and
essentially roadblock law making machinery in the state," it added.
The apex court had previously framed questions to answer in
a dispute between Tamil Nadu government and the Governor over the delay in
assent to bills passed by the legislative assembly.
The bench framed 12 questions largely on the power of the
Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution in giving assent to bills,
withholding assent and reserving for consideration of President.
The top court reserved its verdict in the matter on February
10.
The apex court had also questioned the Governor's
"silence" before withholding assent to the bills passed by the
legislative assembly and wondered how he could refer the "re-passed
bills" to President.
The delay in giving assent by the Governor prompted the
state government to move the top court in 2023, claiming 12 bills, including
one from 2020, were pending with him.
