New Delhi: Analysing the impact of the “opinion” provided by the five-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court on the Presidential Reference regarding the powers of governors and the president to adjudicate on state Bills, the New Indian Express (TNIE) reports citing three senior lawyers that it won't affect the earlier judgment of a two-judge bench of the court that granted “deemed assent” to ten Tamil Nadu Bills pending with governor R.N. Ravi.

Justice K. Chandru, a retired judge of the Madras high court, said speaking to TNIE that the ‘opinion’ provided by the Supreme Court on Thursday (November 20) is only “advisory in nature”. “So, the present view of the court cannot torpedo the earlier judicial order,” he told the newspaper.

His response has a bearing on the ongoing tussle between the governor and the state government in Tamil Nadu, especially over the appointment of vice chancellors (VCs) in the state – a subject that several of the ten Bills given ‘deemed assent’ in April pertain to.

At present, 14 state universities are functioning without regular VCs and the governor has not responded.

With the apex court holding on Thursday that the governor's inaction cannot invite ‘deemed assent’, experts argue that filling vacancies that have pending for a prolonged time may become even harder, TNIE pointed out, noting out that some institutes, including Bharathidasan University, have been without a VC for more than three years, “creating a crisis of governance”.

Tamil Nadu has challenged the interim stay granted by a vacation bench of the Madras high court on nine of the ten Bills from becoming operational after they were given deemed assent by the top court. The hearing is coming up in the Supreme Court in the first week of December. The recent apex court opinion assumes prominence against this backdrop.

Justice Chandru, in his interview to TNIE, said that according to the Constitution a timeline cannot be set for clearing Bills, and the Supreme Court on Thursday made it clear it was not ready to issue a view in favour of something not found in the Constitution.

However, the retired judge said the Supreme Court has also made it clear the governor has but three options before him: grant assent, return the Bill to the legislature or reserve it for the president's consideration.

“For forwarding the Bills to the president as well, the Supreme Court has now put a rider – the governor cannot just forward the Bills to the president, he has to assign reasons for doing so,” Justice Chandru told TNIE.

Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam MP and senior advocate P. Wilson agreed with Justice Chandru's statement and said the top court's opinion was ‘not binding’ and would not affect the two-judge bench's April 8 judgment deeming assent and delivered as part of its “adjudicatory jurisdiction”.

Like Wilson, senior counsel K.M. Vijayan too believes that the Supreme Court's opinion is not binding and cannot be considered a setback for the states.

Stating that “none of the aspects” of the court's answers Thursday were against the states, he said the opinion has in fact ‘spelt out the option for the states to approach the court if a governor fails to discharge his constitutional duty’, TNIE's report states.

At the same time, in an interview to TNIE, former Madras University VC P. Duraisamy had said that the protracted vacancies will have long-term consequences.

“Students will be the ultimate sufferers. Without a full-time VC, key administrative decisions, academic advancements, faculty appointments and research initiatives remain stalled. The academic loss incurred today will reflect for years,” TNIE quoted him as saying.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.