NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday once again questioned Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi for withholding assent to bills and said if he felt the bills are repugnant to the central laws, then why has he not told the state government about it immediately?
“If repugnancy troubled the governor, he should have immediately brought it to the notice of the government, and the state government could have reconsidered the bills for further go ahead,” observed the two-judge bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan.
The top court was hearing the petitions filed by Tamil Nadu against the governor for sitting on bills passed by the state legislature. The argument would continue on Monday.
The bench went on to observe that an “impasse” has been created as the President, after receiving the bills from the governor, has also returned them saying they are repugnant. The bench clarified that the court will go into the question if the bills were repugnant and decide it if needed.
Defending the governor’s stand on the issue, Attorney General (AG) R Venkataramani asked what happens to the Presidential assent when the governor sent the bill to the President, and the President also says he withholds it? “Will the President be called to ask why he didn’t give assent?
This is nothing but political thicket,” Venkataramani said. The AG also said that when the governor ‘communicated’ that he had withheld the assent, he did not do so for the state legislature to re-enact the bills and then come back to the governor to claim that he is bound to give assent.
The AG also claimed that Article 200 does not provide a period of time within which the governor has to act. The governor had multiple options under Article 200, including withholding assent or referring the bills directly to the President, Venkataramani said. The court said a framework or some mechanism must be established to prevent deadlocks between the state and the governor’s office soon.