The Supreme Court
questioned Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi's decision to withhold assent to bills
passed by the state assembly, raising concerns over lack of communication and
possible constitutional implications.
The
Supreme Court on Monday examined the issue of Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi
withholding assent to bills passed by the state assembly, questioning whether
the Governor’s decision to withhold assent should be considered final.
Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the
petitioners, argued that the Governor had no discretion to withhold assent
indefinitely. The court observed that the Tamil Nadu Assembly had reconsidered
the bills and sent them back on November 18, 2024 while the Governor's letter
came on November 28, 2024. The bench pointed out that there was no message from
the Governor indicating that he had withheld assent at the time, nor had he
communicated his reasons for doing so.
‘Undoubtedly, no message was
conveyed,” the court remarked. “He did not say, ‘I am sending this back’ or ‘I
have withheld assent.’ Then this letter comes into place, stating that a
background note on reconsideration, if the bill was approved by the Governor,
is enclosed. When was this approved?” the court asked.
The
bench further inquired if there was any contemporaneous record explaining why
these bills were pending and whether the state assembly had any indication of
the reasons for withholding assent. Dwivedi responded, “No.”
The court then questioned whether the Governor’s act
of withholding assent should be treated as his final decision. Dwivedi
confirmed, “Yes.”
The hearing comes amid a long-standing legal and
political tussle between the Tamil Nadu government and Governor Ravi over the
delay in approving key legislation. The Supreme Court's observations could have
significant implications for the constitutional role of governors in granting
or withholding assent to bills.