New Delhi, Feb 7 The Supreme Court on Friday asked the Attorney General, the top-most law officer of the Centre, if the Tamil Nadu Governor could simply sit over the Bills passed by the Assembly under the impression that they were repugnant to the Constitution, and not communicating his opinion to the legislature.
A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan said that if needed, the apex court could go into the factual question of repugnancy of the Bills after the President declined to give assent to them, saying that the Bills were repugnant to the Constitution.
The Justice Pardiwala-led Bench questioned if it was not incumbent upon the Governor to return the Bills to the Assembly as soon as he noticed the repugnance.
"If the Governor is prima facie of the view that Bill suffers from repugnancy, should it not bring it to the notice of the state government? How is the government expected to know what is in the mind of the Governor? If repugnancy is something that troubled the Governor, the Governor should have immediately brought it to the notice of the government and the Assembly could have reconsidered the Bills," the apex court said.
In its writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution before the top court, the Tamil Nadu government has claimed that the Governor has positioned himself as a "political rival" to the legitimately elected state government. The Governor had returned 10 out of 12 Bills pending with him for his assent after a notice was issued by the Supreme Court on the Tamil Nadu government's plea.
According to Article 200 of the Constitution, if a Bill is passed again, with or without amendments, and is presented to the Governor for assent, he has to accord his approval.
As the Tamil Nadu Assembly in a special session re-adopted 10 Bills, which were sent back by the Governor for reconsideration, the Governor referred them to the President.
In November last year, the top court raised questions over the delay by Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi in giving assent to the Bills passed by the state legislature. After it was told that the Governor returned 10 out of 12 Bills pending with him for his assent, the SC asked: "These Bills have been pending since January 2020. It means that the Governor took the decision after the court issued notice. What was he doing for three years? Why should the Governor wait for the parties to approach the Supreme Court?"
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor