Supreme Court concerned over pendency of bills; Governor claims nothing pending

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday said the people of Tamil Nadu and the state government both are suffering as so many bills are pending, even as Attorney General R Venkataramani, representing the Governor, claimed nothing is pending.

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, for Tamil Nadu, argued before a bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan questioned the delay by Governor R N Ravi in assenting the bills passed by the state legislature.

Upon this, the bench said, "People are suffering, the state is suffering. So many bills are pending". The court said it would decide the matter in public interest.

Attorney General R Venkataramani, for the Tamil Nadu Governor, intervened to claim nothing is pending.

The court was hearing pleas filed by the Tamil Nadu government against the delay by Governor RN Ravi in giving assent to bills passed by the state legislature.

Rohatgi cited Article 200 of the Constitution, to submit that the Governor will have no option but to grant assent.

Citing the constitutional framework, the counsel said, "If he does not do that then the entire system of democracy fails".

The legislative assembly and the Parliament know the demands of the population. They pass certain laws keeping in view their demands, the counsel said.

He said, 12 bills, for the period from January 13, 2020, to April 28, 2023, were sent to the Governor.

"Two out of 12 bills were sent for the consideration of the President and 10 sent back for reconsideration. They were re-enacted by the assembly, which is the reiteration of their view. According to the law, he has no option but to grant his assent. Those 10 bills are also sent for consideration of President," Rohatgi said.

The bench asked if the state is seeking a declaration that when the bills are again sent back to the Governor, he has no jurisdiction to send it anywhere.

"We cannot operate in a situation of a deadlock, and 3-4 years have gone by," the counsel said.

The bench asked, if the bill is sent again to him and he is not satisfied with it then what is the remedy. Rohatgi said he has no choice.

The AG emphasised that all bills requiring the Governor’s assent had already been addressed, with no bills currently pending for approval.

He pointed out that the apex court had not issued a notice regarding the appointment of Vice-Chancellors and that the UGC had not been included as a party in the case, which makes it difficult to offer a detailed response.

Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, also for the Tamil Nadu government, contended before the bench that the refusal by the Governor regarding the approval of the appointment of VCs had affected the university administration. Senior advocate P Wilson, also representing the state government, criticised the action of the Governor.