The court seemed to prima facie agree with T.N.’s argument that the first proviso of Article 200 States that “if the Bill is passed again by the House or Houses with or without amendment and presented to the Governor for assent, the Governor shall not withhold assent therefrom.”

The Supreme Court on Monday, November 20, 2023 observed that the Constitution does not provide Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi “discretion” to withhold Bills “re-passed” by the State Legislative Assembly.

“Once they have been re-passed, the 10 Bills are put in the position of Money Bills. Then you [Governor] cannot reject,” Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud remarked.

The court seemed to prima facie agree with argument raised by the State, represented by senior advocates A.M. Singhvi, Mukul Rohatgi, P. Wilson and advocate Sabarish Subramanian, that the first proviso of Article 200 States that “if the Bill is passed again by the House or Houses with or without amendment and presented to the Governor for assent, the Governor shall not withhold assent therefrom”.

The court clarified that the Governor loses his power to refer the 10 reiterated Bills to the President once he withholds consent and returns the Bills to the House.

The Bills had been sent for approval to the Governor’s office between January 2020 and April 2023. The State had complained to the court that the Governor was holding them back indefinitely, defeating the rights of the people of Tamil Nadu to the benefits of crucial laws passed by the House.

The Governor had returned the Bills on November 13. The Tamil Nadu Assembly had convened a special session on November 18 to re-pass the Bills and send them back to the Governor for approval.

“The Governor returned the Bills with just one line ‘I withhold consent’. What was the Assembly supposed to do? So, the House re-passed the Bills… The Governor has to return the Bills with a message spelling out reasons why he has returned the Bills,” Mr. Rohatgi pointed out.

Mr. Singhvi said the Governor neither returned the Bills with a “message” suggesting amendments to the proposed laws nor citing reasons for withholding his consent. Besides, he sat on the Bills indefinitely for nearly three years.

The Governor says he disposed of the Bills on November 13, 2023. Our order issuing notice to the petition [filed by Tamil Nadu] was on November 10. These Bills have been pending since January 2020. The Governor took action only after we issued notice in the matter. Why should Governors want parties to move the Supreme Court to start taking steps? In this case, what was the Governor doing for three years,” Chief Justice Chandrachud asked Attorney General R. Venkataramani.

Mr. Wilson urged the court to fix a time limit for Governors. “We have to run the governance of the State. Every time, we cannot come to the Supreme Court. Seven crore people are affected,” he submitted.

Mr. Singhvi said the Governor had to function within the State Legislature. “He cannot exercise a pocket veto,” the senior lawyer contended.

Mr. Wilson said the Governor exercised his power of assent with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.

He referred to the Constituent Assembly debates to highlight the statement made by T.T. Krishnamachari, the Member from Madras and later Finance Minister, that a “Governor cannot act on his own, he can only act on the advice of the Ministry… When a Governor sends a Bill back for further consideration, he does so expressly on the advice of his Council of Ministers”.

Mr. Krishnamachari had explained that if the Bill passed by the Legislative Assembly needed modification or had been a product of hasty action or had garnered adverse public opinion, the government used the Governor to return the Bill to the Lower House as quickly as possible for re-legislation. The first proviso to Article 200 was thus a “saving clause” and retained the power and discretion over the fate of the Bill solely in the hands of the State Cabinet.

“What was the Governor doing when these Bills were given to him,” the Chief Justice asked Mr. Venkataramani.

The Attorney General said the present Governor had assumed office only in November 2021.

“The question here is not which particular Governor has delayed the exercise of his constitutional function. The question here is whether, in general, there has been a delay in the constitutional function… We are talking about the office of the Tamil Nadu Governor,” Chief Justice Chandrachud clarified with the Attorney General.

Mr. Venkataramani submitted that 182 Bills were given to the Governor by the House for approval. Of this, 152 have been approved, five were withdrawn by the government and nine reserved by the Governor for referral to the President. The Governor had withheld consent on 10 proposed laws and five, which were received in October 2023, were under process.

“Out of the 10 Bills on which the Governor had withheld consent, the real issue is the amendments made to the State universities’ legislations by which the Chancellor (Governor) is deprived of his powers to select the Vice-Chancellors,” Mr. Venkataramani submitted.

Mr. Singhvi said the Bills passed by the House represented the ultimate will of the people. “The system followed is that the House retains the right to remain wrong in their domain. The Governor plays no role in this… The spirit of the Constitution cannot be made a fool of with the Governor either sitting on the Bills or withholding consent without assigning reasons. He cannot make a mockery of Article 200 of the Constitution,” he argued.

Mr. Venkataramani sought a deferment of the hearing in order to give the Governor time to consider the re-passed Bills. The court scheduled the next hearing on December 1.