Governors can’t kill bill

New Delhi: Governors cannot “kill bills” passed by state legislatures by first withholding assent for long and then referring them for presidential nod, the Supreme Court said on Friday, expressing displeasure at Tamil Nadu governor RN Ravi sending 10 bills to the President after the state assembly had re-enacted them in a special session last month.

According to a bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Ravi had no option but to sign off on the bills after the assembly cleared the proposed legislations and sent them back for the governor’s approval.

“You can’t withhold the bill and kill it virtually at that stage... He can’t stultify a bill completely at the level of withholding assent. We are conscious of the fact that we are dealing with a high constitutional authority. But he has to exercise his authority under the provisions of the Constitution,” the bench, which also included justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, told attorney general (AG) R Venkataramani, who appeared for the governor’s office.

The bench’s observations on Friday underscore a long-running standoff between Raj Bhavans and elected governments in several states. In the last few months, Punjab, Telangana, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have approached the Supreme Court seeking directives to their respective governors. These proceedings have prompted the top court to issue judgments and orders mapping out the powers and corresponding duties of governors with regard to the bills sent for their assent by state legislatures.

On Friday, the bench was hearing a petition by the MK Stalin government accusing Ravi of acting like a “political rival” rather than a constitutional statesman by “inexplicably delaying or even failing to consider and assent to the bills passed by the legislature”. While 12 bills were initially pending, by a communication dated November 13 from Ravi’s office, the assembly was informed that the governor was withholding assent for 10 of them. The intimation went from Ravi’s office after a top court hearing on November 10 in which the bench expressed “serious concerns” over governors’ inaction on bills. While the assembly re-enacted these 10 bills following a special session on November 18, the governor’s office informed the assembly on November 30 that the 10 bills were now referred to the President.

Referring to Article 200 of the Constitution, which deals with the power and role of governor when a bill is submitted to their office, the court emphasised that Ravi could not sit over the bills indefinitely and if he had to refer them to the President, he ought to have done it before informing the assembly that he was withholding his assent.

“He has only three options when a bill which has been passed by the state legislature is presented for assent. The governor shall declare either that he assents to the Bill; or that he withholds assent; or that he reserves the Bill for the consideration of the President. There is no option of referring it to President after he has withheld his assent and the Bill is subsequently passed by the legislature again,” the bench told the AG.

The AG sought to argue a fine point of distinction between the governor withholding his assent and returning it to the assembly for a reconsideration and where the governor withholds his assent but does not return the bill. According to Venkataramani, there is no restraint against the governor reserving a bill for the presidential assent if the bill has not been returned to the assembly.

But the bench stressed that the governor cannot exercise the two options together – first withhold the assent and then choose to refer it to the President. “Once he withholds his assent, then he cannot kill the Bill there. He can’t stall the bill... Once you have withheld the assent on November 13, 2023, why did you not send it to the President at that time?” it asked the AG.

“You want us to look at the constitutional provision and we will do that. But we want the governor to resolve this. We would appreciate if the governor engaged with the chief minister and resolved this impasse. We think it’s appropriate that the governor invites the CM and have a discussion on the bills,” the bench further said, deferring the proceedings to December 11.

Senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Tamil Nadu, requested the bench to ensure that the bills are not processed at the President’s office since that would further precipitate the issue. Responding, the bench said: “They know we are hearing the matter. Mr AG, please tell them you are before us.”

“The Governor has sent this to the President to prolong the issue,” said Tamil Nadu’s law minister S Regupathy on Friday.

The DMK government had approached the top court on October 31 against the inaction by Ravi in clearing bills and files, contending that the situation caused a “constitutional deadlock”. It sought redressal by urging the court to specify timelines for the governor to act without sitting on it without taking a decision.

While dealing with a similar petition filed by the Punjab government, the top court released a detailed judgment on November 23, holding that governors cannot keep bills pending indefinitely and that they must give their assent if the legislature readopts the bills despite their objections.

In another matter, on November 29, the Supreme Court agreed to examine whether governor can reserve a bill for presidential assent without assigning any reason and after sitting on it for an inordinate period, as it questioned Kerala governor Arif Mohammed Khan’s move to refer to the President seven of the eight bills that he was withholding for a period ranging between seven and 26 months.