SC suggests TN Governor and CM to sit together and resolve bill issues

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday suggested that Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi and state Chief Minister MK Stalin sit together and resolve the issue relating to bills passed by the state assembly.

A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and also comprising justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra thought it would be appropriate if the Governor invites the Chief Minister.

The court, which was hearing the TN government's plea against the governor's inaction on various pending bills, adjourned the matter to December 11.

The TN Governor has referred all 10 bills to the President. Those ten bills were re-enacted by the state assembly, the lawyer tells the Supreme Court during the hearing.

The court remarked that there are three options for the governor: either assent, withhold assent or reserve the bill for the president. It was also remarked that once the governor withholds assent, there is no question of him reserving it for the President.

The court also commented that there is some ambivalence as, at an earlier stage, he could send it back to the Assembly or reserve it for the President. The court noted that the president holds an elected office and is conferred with much wider power. The governor, as a nominee of the Union Government, must exercise one of the three options in the Constitution, the court said.

The Tamil Nadu Government has moved the Supreme Court to issue directions to the Governor to clear the bills and various files forwarded by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly and Government that are pending with his office within a specified timeframe.

Various bills were disposed of by the Governor on November 13. Observing these facts, the court expressed its concern, observing that bills had been pending since January 2020 and were cleared after the apex court passed the order on November 10. The court was informed that the state assembly passed the ten bills again in a special session on November 18.

All 12 bills mentioned in the writ petition were disposed of on November 13. (Out of these 12 bills, assent has been withheld in 10 bills and 2 bills have been reserved for consideration by the President.)

On November 18, 2023, a special session of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly was held and all the 10 Bills for which assent was withheld by the Governor, were reconsidered and passed in the Assembly. All 10 bills have been sent by the state government to the governor's secretariat on November 18.

In the petition, the TN Government has sought to direct the Governor to dispose of all the bills, files, and government orders forwarded by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly and Government that are pending with his office within a specified timeframe. The petition has been filed through an advocate on record, Sabarish Subramanian.

In the petition, the TN Government has sought to direct the Governor to dispose of all the bills, files, and government orders forwarded by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly and Government that are pending with his office within a specified timeframe.

The petition sought to declare that the inaction, omission, delay and failure to comply with the constitutional mandate by the Governor of Tamil Nadu/first respondent qua the consideration and assent of the bills passed and forwarded by the Tamil Nadu State Legislature to him and the non-consideration of files, government orders and policies forwarded by the State Government for his signature is unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary, and unreasonable, besides malafide exercise of power.

The Governor, by not "signing remission orders, day-to-day files, appointment orders, approving recruitment orders, granting approval to prosecute ministers, and MLAs involved in corruption, including the transfer of investigations to the CBI by the Supreme Court and bills passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly," is bringing the entire administration to a grinding halt and creating an adversarial attitude by not cooperating with the state administration, the TN government said.

Thereby, the state government sought to issue directions to stipulate the outer time limit for the 1st Respondent Governor to consider bills passed by the Legislature and sent for assent under Article 200 of the Constitution in light of the recommendations of the Sarkaria Commission.

"The refusal to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers or deliberate inaction in acting on the bills or the files on the part of the Governor, including any delay, will defeat the parliamentary democracy and the will of the people and consequently violate the basic structure of the Constitution," the petition said.

The state government said that the current Writ Petition addresses the specific issue that the government and Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu are facing with amendments or changes as they think appropriate.

"If, on such reconsideration, the Bill is passed again, with or without amendments, and is presented to the Governor for assent, he has to accord his assent. The second proviso says that if in the opinion of the Governor, any bill presented to him derogates the powers of the High Court to endanger the position that the High Court is designed to fill by the Constitution, he is bound to reserve the bill for the consideration of the President," the petition said.

The TN Govt said that by denying sanction when the investigative authorities have found prima facie evidence of corruption and have asked for permission to prosecute, the first respondent governor is engaging in politically motivated conduct. This includes the CBI inquiry that this Court has approved and that the Madras High Court ordered.

The Governor's inactions have caused a constitutional deadlock between the Constitutional Head of the State and the Elected Government of the State and by not acting upon their constitutional functions, the Governor is toying away with the citizen's mandate, the state government said.

Hence, the state government has sought to issue appropriate directions laying down guidelines stipulating the outer time limit for the 1st Respondent to consider bills passed by the Legislature and sent for assent under Article 200 of the Constitution in light of the recommendations of the Sarkaria Commission.

It also sought to issue directions laying down guidelines stipulating the outer time limit for the 1st Respondent to consider files, policies, and government orders sent for signature in the discharge of his constitutional functions.