A cross-section of legal luminaries is of the view that Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi would have to act on the 10 Bills that the Legislative Assembly had readopted after he had “withheld assent” and returned them.
A veteran constitutional lawyer and former Attorney General of India cited Article 200 of the Constitution to state that the Governor has no option, but to give assent when the Bill is adopted for the second time and sent for his assent. “It does not matter whether they (the Bills) were sent for reconsideration or withheld the first time,” the veteran said, requesting anonymity.
Describing as “unfortunate” the Governor’s action of withholding assent for Bills without assigning reasons, former Union Law Minister Kapil Sibal told The Hindu: “He [the Governor] cannot send them back anymore. Now, he has to decide whether or not he wants to refer them to the Government of India [President] for constitutional infirmity. And if there is none, he has to accept them.”
Mr. Sibal said it was constitutionally inappropriate for Governors to stall legislative business.
“This [returning Bills], obviously, is yet another way of stalling the legislative intent of members of the Legislature and the progress of legislation, which the government considers to be significant from the point of view of governing the State. We have seen the Governor stalling legislation in this fashion in the past. I am afraid that this, unfortunately, is a pattern that we have seen not just with one Governor, but with various Governors across India, wherever the Opposition parties [of the BJP] are in power,” Mr. Sibal, an Independent Rajya Sabha member, said.
Senior lawyer of the Supreme Court Sanjay Hegde, too, was of the view that Governors had to grant assent when a Bill was readopted and resent, unless they want to reserve the Bills for President’s assent if the Bills deal with subjects in the Concurrent List.
Asked whether there was any chance wherein the Tamil Nadu Bills that deal with amendment to Acts governing State universities may now be reserved for President’s assent, contending that ‘Education’ was in the Concurrent List, Mr. Hegde said: “He [the Governor] can try many things. But, I suspect he will not want to run afoul of the Supreme Court.”
Ultimately, the Governor often acts like the Home Ministry’s representative, he said, adding: “I don’t think the Centre will unnecessarily want to take on the Supreme Court in this issue, particularly because it is an all-State issue”.
Holding a similar view, senior advocate K.M. Vijayan said that “withholding assent” amounted to the Governor not taking any action. Irrespective of the comment that is given, the second time a Bill is adopted and sent to him, “the Governor does not have any power to return the Bill”.
The terminology used while returning the Bill is immaterial, Mr. Vijayan added.
