New Delhi [India], February 7 (ANI): In a case related to Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi withholding assent to several Bills passed by the State legislature, Supreme Court on Friday heard arguments over Governor’s power to assent the billls.
The Attorney General of India (AG) R. Venkataramani, appearing on behalf of the Tamil Nadu Governor, pertinently submitted that when a bill passed by the State legislature is found to be repugnant, there is no requirement to return the bill to the legislature for re-examination. The return of a bill applies only when defects in the bill are correctable, other than those related to repugnancy, the AG argued.
The AG was making the arguments before a Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan.
The Court asked the AG to clarify on another point on Article 201, which states that when a Bill is reserved for the consideration of the President (when the Governor reserves the bill for the President’s consideration), they must either assent to it or withhold assent.
The Bench asked the AG if the President can immediately decline the Bill on the grounds of repugnancy, to which the AG answered “Yes, she can”.
The Court then asked the AG the decision to withhold assent to the Bill, rather than outright decline it. The Court pointed out that if the Bill were truly repugnant, assent should have been declined but the Bill was withheld.
In response, the AG argued that when the President withholds assent, it effectively renders the law stillborn, meaning it cannot come into effect.
However, the AG clarified that when the President withholds assent, she is aware of the reasons behind it and can invoke a proviso allowing for further action.
The Court told the AG that if it accepts his argument that a repugnant Bill doesn’t require return under the Constitutional provision, the State’s arguments regarding reconsideration, return, and assent (of a Bill) would fall to the ground.
As per facts of the case, the Tamil Nadu government has filed a plea challenging the Tamil Nadu Governor’s decision in having withheld several bills, specifically in relation to appointments of Vice Chancellors in State universities.
During yesterday’s hearing in the matter, the counsels appearing for Tamil Nadu had vehemently argued that the Governor’s role with regard to Bills passed by the legislature is only recommendatory in nature and is governed by the Constitutional provisions. The Governor is not super government or a super legislature and thus he cannot act arbitrarily in withholding bills, it was argued.
The Court had, after considering arguments made on behalf of Tamil Nadu, criticised Governor Ravi for having “devised his own procedure” in withholding assent to several Bills.
After hearing arguments on behalf of the Governor today, the Court listed the matter to be heard next on Monday (February 10). (ANI)
Disclaimer: This story is auto-generated from a syndicated feed of ANI; only the image & headline may have been reworked by News Services Division of World News Network Inc Ltd and Palghar News and Pune News and World News
HINDI, MARATHI, GUJARATI, TAMIL, TELUGU, BENGALI, KANNADA, ORIYA, PUNJABI, URDU, MALAYALAM
For more details and packages
