The Wire Staff 
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday (February 6) questioned Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi on why he decided to sit over some bills enacted by the state legislature for three years before declaring he was withholding assent and referring them to the President.
A bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan was hearing Tamil Nadu government’s petition and asked the attorney general R. Venkataramani why, in the name of repugnancy, the governor took so long to send the bills to the President.
“What is something so gross in the bills which the governor took 3 years to find?” Justice Pardiwala asked. The bench also pointed out that two of the bills were referred by the governor to the President after the assembly re-enacted them.
“The Governor had an option in the first instance to refer all 12 Bills to the President. But in his discretion, he thought it fit to refer 2 out of 12 and for the remaining 10, he said I withhold. What next?” Justice Pardiwala asked.
“He seems to have adopted his own procedure,” the court said.
On November 13, 2023, the Governor R.N. Ravi had declared that he was withholding assent on 10 bills passed by the Tamil Nadu state assembly. Subsequently, the assembly convened a special session on November 18, 2023, and re-enacted the same bills.
This time, the governor had to proceed to refer all 10 bills to the President for consideration; the President had assented to one Bill, rejected seven and did not consider two proposed laws. The state government, represented by senior advocates Rakesh Dwivedi, Mukul Rohatgi, A.M. Singhvi and P. Wilson, argued that the governor’s conduct was that of a political opponent.
Venkataramani argued the governor had only expressed his wish to withhold consent; he had not sent them back to the government. However, he said, the state assembly misconceived or second-guessed his intentions and re-enacted the 10 bills.
The court said that the decision to declare the withholding without returning the bills frustrates the second part of Article 200 of the Constitution. It wondered what contemporary material was available “except one letter addressed by the secretary” to explain how the governor approached the issue.
The court told the AG that they will have to show the court factually what weighed in with the governor in arriving at the decision.
“Governor could have drawn the attention of the government. He could have said a, b, c, d…you need to reconsider. Otherwise, how shall the court understand what weighed with him? You can’t show us by way of an affidavit filed by any other officer. You need to show us from some contemporaneous record available with the office of the Governor as to what was discussed, what was looked into, what are the lacunae, what are the loopholes which the Governor found,” it said.
The hearing will resume on Friday, February 7.