NEW DELHI: The Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) is preparing to file a review petition against the Supreme Court’s April 8 order in the case filed by the Tamil Nadu government against Governor RN Ravi, citing certain ‘infirmities’ in points of law, officials said on Sunday.
Officials said the ministry is considering the move because the Supreme Court order also sets a three-month deadline for the President of India to decide on bills referred by state Governors.
Since the Ministry of Home Affairs serves as the nodal agency for processing such references and communicating the President’s decisions to the states, the matter directly involves its jurisdiction, they added.
Officials also pointed out that the Supreme Court’s order also opens the door for ‘lapsed bills’ to be revived. Under constitutional provisions, such bills can only be restored by reintroducing them in the state assemblies—either in their original form or with amendments suggested by the President while returning them, they added.
When the President withholds assent to a bill, the same is treated as lapsed, they noted.
Officials also argued that the review petition has been necessitated as the Central government’s views could not be adequately presented during the course of the arguments.
The officials said, Article 201 of the Constitution mandates the MHA to act as the nodal agency for processing and conveying a final decision of the President of India with respect to State legislations.
Notably, the Tamil Nadu government on Saturday notified the 10 said laws in the Government Gazette, following the apex court's order, which the state noted as "deemed" to have received assent.
It came after the Judicial intervention in the matter on the petition filed by the state against the governor’s decision to indefinitely withhold assent to 10 Bills passed by the State Assembly, some dating back to 2020.
In its April 8 verdict, SC held that the governor’s decision to reserve the Bills for the President was “illegal and erroneous,” and set it aside.
A bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan observed that a governor may exercise discretion only in specific circumstances outlined in the Constitution. The court, invoking its powers under Article 142, ruled that the Bills be treated as having received assent after being re-presented to the governor.
It also directed that the president to decide on Bills referred by a governor within three months of receiving them, and allowed state governments to approach the apex court directly if the president withholds assent.
