Governor’s Silence
The Supreme Court questioned the prolonged "silence" of Tamil Nadu's Governor, R.N. Ravi, regarding Bills sent by the state.
This silence lasted for months or years before he withheld consent and referred 10 Bills to the President.
The Attorney-General mentioned that the Governor had communicated his objections earlier, especially regarding the appointment process for Vice-Chancellors of state universities.
However, the Governor didn't explain his concerns about the Bills to the State government.
Court’s Criticism
Justice Pardiwala suggested that had the Governor shared his concerns, the state might have agreed or made changes.
The Court considered whether the Governor acted beyond his powers by withholding consent and referring the Bills to the President without clear reasons.
State’s Response
Senior advocate A.M. Singhvi argued that the Governor should have communicated reasons for withholding consent, as good governance requires transparency.
He also stated that after withholding consent, the state legislature had the power to reconsider the Bills under Article 200 of the Constitution.
The Tamil Nadu Assembly re-passed the Bills within five days after the Governor withheld consent in November 2023, which raised questions about the speed of the process.
Singhvi argued that under Article 200, the state legislature holds authority, and the Governor has no discretion to deny assent after the Bills are reconsidered.
COMMENTS