Did T.N. Governor refer re-passed Bills to President to avoid assent, asks Supreme Court

Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi. File
| Photo Credit: M. Periasamy

The Supreme Court on Friday (February 7, 2025) asked whether Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi referred 10 Bills re-passed by the State Legislature to the President to avoid having to give his consent to them. 

A Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan questioned Attorney-General of India (AG) R. Venkataramani if the Governor had referred the re-passed Bills to the President for consideration only to circumvent the procedure under the first proviso of Article 200 (Governor’s assent of Bills) of the Constitution.

Under Article 200, a Governor has three options when Bills are sent to him for assent. That is, either to give assent, withhold assent or refer the Bills to the President for consideration.

Tamil Nadu government has argued that a Governor can refer a Bill to the President only in case of any ‘repugnancy’ under Article 254, that is, if the proposed State law is found to be inconsistent with or encroaches into an existing Central law or if the Bill tends to derogate the Constitutional powers of the State High Court.

Under the first proviso of Article 200, if the Governor chooses to withhold assent to a Bill, he has to return it as soon as possible to the House with a “message” to reconsider the proposed law or specified provisions or suggest amendments. If the House reiterates the Bill and presents it to the Governor, the “Governor shall not withhold assent”. In short, the proviso makes it clear that the Governor has to grant consent.

Bills on V-C appointments

In Tamil Nadu’s case, originally 12 Bills, mostly dealing with appointments of Vice-Chancellors in State universities, were sent by the State Legislature for consent to the Governor between January 2020 and April 2023. The Governor had sat on them. Ultimately, when the State approached the top court against the Governor’s perceived inaction in November 2023, the latter had referred two of the Bills to the President and proceeded to withhold consent on the remaining 10.

Subsequently, the State Assembly had re-passed the 10 Bills in a special session within days and returned them to the Governor for his assent. The State argued in the apex court that it was following procedure under the first proviso of Article 200. The Governor had proceeded to refer all 10 Bills to the President for consideration. The President had subsequently assented to one Bill, rejected seven and not considered the remaining two proposed laws.

“Having taken a conscious decision to withhold assent, can the Governor take the third choice and refer the Bills to the President? Having withheld assent, can he try to overcome the first proviso procedure by referring to the President? If he withholds assent, the procedure under the first proviso would have to be followed…” Justice Pardiwala addressed the AG.

Mr. Venkataramani argued that the Governor, having withheld consent to the Bills, had not asked the State Assembly to re-consider them. The procedure under the first proviso of Article 200 did not cover a situation when a proposed law is found to be repugnant by the Governor.

“What you are saying is that the first proviso covers only small issues like suggestions and amendments to the Bills sent for assent. On the other hand, if a Bill is found to be repugnant, then the first proviso is completely out of play. The procedure of the first proviso does not kick in… In this case, when the State Legislature unilaterally re-enacted these 10 Bills and sent them back to the Governor, but there was no question of you according consent now,” Justice Pardiwala summed up Mr. Venkataramani’s submissions in defence of the Governor.

Mr. Venkataramani said the ‘message’ in the first proviso did not contemplate repugnancy.

When asked by the court what if the President also withheld her consent to all the 10 Bills, the AG replied they would then be considered as “still-born”.

“After the President withholds assent, the Bills are found repugnant for all practical purposes,” the top law officer explained.

The court posted the case for a final day’s hearing on February 10.