Once Governor withholds assent, he can't send Bills to President: SC

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday said once the Governor withholds assent to a Bill sent by the state Assembly, he cannot say, he would refer it to the President.

The court also explained once the Governor withholds assent, he cannot "kill the Bill" by keeping it perennially.

A bench of Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra told the Attorney General R Venkataramani that there so many things which have to be resolved between the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and the state’s Governor.

"We would appreciate if the Governor engages with the CM and resolves the impasse, regarding disposing of Bills submitted for his assent," the bench said.

Senior advocates A M Singhi and P Wilson, appearing for the Tamil Nadu government, submitted the Governor, in the latest decision, said the Bills re-enacted by the Assembly would be sent to the President.

"We would like the Governor to resolve this impasse. We are conscious of the fact that we are dealing with high constitutional functionary… there are three options to the governor under the substantive part of Article 200 of the Constitution: he can asset to the Bill, or he can withhold assent, or he can reserve the Bill for the consideration of the President,” the bench said.

"Once the Governor withholds the assent there is no question of him referring it to the President,” the bench added.

The AG, for his part, asserted that it is an open question and it would have to be examined.

“He has to follow one of the three options: assent, withhold assent, and refer it to the president. So, when he withholds assent. Then, he cannot say that now I am referring it to the President. Second, once he withholds assent. He cannot kill the bill right then, I mean we are using it in a very common parlance…he cannot stall the bill there,” the CJI said.

The bench said that once the Governor withholds assent then the proviso does not give him a fourth option.

The AG said on this aspect he has a little difference.

“We have laid down that law. That is governed by our judgment (in the Punjab governor matter),” the bench said.

The AG said the court may have relook at the proviso for the fourth option.

“Otherwise, what happens….the moment he withholds assent and we say that he is not bound to send it to the Assembly. He can stultify the Bill completely at the level of the Governor,” the bench said.

The bench also pointed out the President holds an elected office, therefore much wider power is conferred on him by the Constitution.

“The Governor as a nominee of the Union government must exercise one of the three options specified in the substantive part of Article 200,” the bench said.

The AG contended that if the Governor withholds assent, the a

Assembly will say we don’t care for withholding the assent, “we will pass the bill once again”.

The bench asked the AG, “the Governor has independent power to simply withhold the assent?”

The bench put the matter for further consideration next week.

On November 20, the Supreme Court had questioned the delay by the Tamil Nadu's Governor in taking a decision on Bills submitted for assent as early as in January 2020, by asking what he was doing for three years.