SC seeks govt reply on Tamil Nadu plea accusing Governor of delaying bills

Calling it a “matter of serious concern”, the Supreme Court on Friday sought a response from the Union government on a petition filed by the Tamil Nadu government against delay by governor RN Ravi in processing nearly 12 bills passed by the state legislature, besides withholding several other files relating to sanction and remission.

“The issues raised are of great concern. From the tabulated statement, it appears that as many as 12 bills submitted to the governor under Article 200 have not elicited any further action and other matters regarding proposal for grant of sanction, premature release and appointment of public service commission are pending. We issue notice to the Union of India represented by the secretary in the ministry of home affairs,” a bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, ordered.

Fixing the case for hearing next on November 20 (the court is on a Diwali break between November 13 and 18), the bench also sought the assistance of the attorney general or the solicitor general in the matter.

Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the state, argued on his part that the trend of governors refusing to act on bills was now visible across many states in the country. “This is a disease spreading from Kashmir to Kanyakumari,” he said.

Singhvi added that there are a few files pending for more than two years. “He is not signing remission orders...Nothing at all. Here is a letter saying we are begging you to give sanction for prosecution or remission. There are people in prison. Something has to be done,” said the senior counsel.

The CJI then said that the Court will issue notice and keep the matter for later since the assistance of A-G or S-G would be required.

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

The petition, filed through advocate Sabarish Subramanian, argued that the inaction or delay by governor is “unconstitutional, illegal and malafide exercise of power” which has brought the entire administration to a grinding halt and is creating “adversarial attitude” by not cooperating with the state administration.

Earlier in April, hours before the Supreme Court was scheduled to hear a petition filed by the Telangana government against governor Tamilisai Soundararajan for creating a “constitutional impasse” by refusing to act on several bills, the governor signed off on three bills. This petition was later disposed of even as the top court held that the expression “as soon as possible” under Proviso 1 of Article 200 has significant constitutional intent and must be borne in mind by all constitutional authorities. The provision states that “the governor may, as soon as possible, after the presentation to him of the bill for assent, return the bill if it is not a money bill.”