NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday expressed “serious concern” over the delay by Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi in giving assent to bills passed by the Tamil Nadu Assembly. A three-judge bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra noted that as many as 12 bills are pending with the Tamil Nadu Governor and sought the centre’s response to the state government’s writ petition accusing the Raj Bhavan of “sitting over” legislations. Senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Mukul Rohatgi, and P Wilson appeared on behalf of the state government.
During the hearing, Singhvi submitted that key decisions taken by the state government such as sanction for prosecution, appointment of members to the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, and grant of premature release to prisoners are awaiting the approval of the governor. The state cannot carry out recruitment without the full quorum of the Public Service Commission including the chairman. “From Punjab to Tamil Nadu, the disease is spreading,” he said. States are now made to approach the Supreme Court with the same problems and the Constitution does not permit the governor to act against the state government. Article 200 requires him to deal with bills ‘as soon as possible’, Singhvi said.
Senior advocate P Wilson said the governor is acting in defiance of the Constitution, and the elected government and governor have become dysfunctional. He submitted five legal propositions for consideration by the Supreme Court regarding the time frame to be fixed for governors while dealing with bills and executive actions. Under Article 91 of the draft constitution, the time limit fixed for the President to decide on bills was six weeks and the same can be fixed for governors too, Wilson said.
SC posts guv matter to Nov 20
Wilson said 10 of 14 TNPSC member posts, including that of chairman, cannot be filled because of the governor’s defiant attitude and beseeched the court to “save the people of Tamil Nadu”. Posting the matter for further consideration on November 20, the bench also required the presence of the Attorney General for India or the Solicitor General for assistance on that day.
In an earlier hearing, the Supreme Court had expressed concern over delay by various governors in giving assent to key bills passed by the state governments, especially those ruled by opposition parties such as Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Punjab.
The CJI had asked why the governors should act only after the states approach the top court. “Governor must know that he is not an elected representative. He can withhold assent and send it back once, particularly money bills. Why should parties be required to move the Supreme Court for convening the House? We are the oldest democracy and these issues must be sorted out between the CM and the governor,” he had remarked in the case filed by the Punjab government against the state’s governor Banwarilal Purohit.
June session of Punjab ASSEMBLY valid: SC
Asserting that the governor can’t doubt the validity of a session of the legislature, the Supreme Court on Friday held the June 19-20 session of the Punjab assembly constitutionally valid. It pulled up Punjab governor Banwarilal Purohit for not deciding on the bills passed by the state assembly, saying: “You are playing with fire”