Did the Governor of TN refer to the bills revealed to the president to avoid assent?

Governor of Tamil Nadu Rn Ravi. File | Photo credit: M. Periasamy

The Supreme Court on Friday (February 7, 2025) asked if the governor of Tamil Nadu, RN Ravi, sent 10 bills restructured by the state legislature to the president to avoid having to give them his consent.

A Bank of Judges JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan questioned the Attorney General of India (AG) R. Venkataramani if ​​the governor had referred the bills collected to the President only to consider the procedure under the first condition of article 200 (the consent of the governor of the bills) of the Constitution.

According to article 200, a governor has three options when he is sent bills by assent. That is, to give assent, retain the assent or send the bills to the President for consideration.

The Government of Tamil Nadu has argued that a governor can send a bill to the President only in case of any “disgust” under article 254, that is, if it is found that the proposed state law is inconsistent or invades a central law existing or if the bill tends to repeal the constitutional powers of the Superior Court of the State.

According to the first condition of article 200, if the governor chooses to retain the consent of a bill, he has to return it as soon as possible to the Chamber with a “message” to reconsider the proposed law or the specified provisions or suggest amendments. If the Chamber reiterates the bill and presents it to the governor, the “governor will not retain the assent.” In summary, the condition makes it clear that the governor has to grant consent.

Dating invoices with VC

In the case of Tamil Nadu, originally, the state legislature sent 12 bills, mainly dealing with appointments of Vice Chancellor in state universities, for his consent to the governor between January 20, 2020 and April 2023. The governor had sat in them. Ultimately, when the State approached the Superior Court against the perceived inaction of the governor in November 2023, the latter had sent two of the bills to the President and proceeded to retain the consent of the remaining 10.

Subsequently, the State Assembly had once again passed the 10 bills in a special session in a matter of days and returned them to the governor for consent. The State argued in the Apex court that was following the procedure under the first condition of article 200. The governor had proceeded to refer the 10 bills to the President for consideration. Subsequently, the president had nodded a bill, rejected seven and did not consider the remaining two proposed laws.

“Having made a conscious decision to retain the assent, can the governor take the third option and send the bills to the President? Having retained assent, can you try to overcome the first condition procedure when referring to the president? If you retain the assent, the procedure under the first condition would have to be followed … “Judge Pardiwala approached the AG.

Mr. Venkataramani argued that the governor, having retained the consent of the bills, had not asked the State Assembly to reconsider them. The procedure under the first condition of article 200 did not cover a situation in which the governor discovered that a proposed law is disgusting.

“What he is saying is that the first condition covers only small problems such as suggestions and amendments to the bills sent by assent. On the other hand, if it is found that a bill is disgusting, then the first condition is completely out of play. The procedure of the first condition does not come in this case … in this case, when the state legislature recreated unilaterally these 10 bills and sent them back to the governor, but there was no doubt about you according to consent now “, Judge Pardiwala added.

Mr. Venkataramani said that the “message” in the first condition did not contemplate disgust.

When the court asked him what if the president also retained his consent for the 10 bills, the AG replied that they would later be considered “still born.”

“After the president retains the assent, the bills are disgusting for all practical purposes,” explained the main law officer.

The court published the case for a hearing of the final day on February 10.