'Why didn't Governor R N Ravi inform the Tamil Nadu govt if repugnancy troubled him?' asks SC

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday asked Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi why he withheld the assent to bills, if he felt those were repugnant to the central laws, and why he has not told the state government immediately about it.

"If repugnancy troubled the Governor, he should have immediately brought it to the notice of the government and the government could have reconsidered the bills for further go ahead," a bench Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said.

Hearing Tamil Nadu's plea over delay in assent of bills, including related to search-and-selection committees for the appointment of Vice-Chancellors in three universities, the bench said an "impasse" has been created, as the President, after receiving the bills from the State Governor has also returned those saying that they are repugnant.

The court said it would go into the questions if the bills were repugnant and decide it, if need arose.

The bench felt that under Article 200 of the Constitution, the Governor is obligated to return the bills to the Assembly for reconsideration if repugnance is found.

Attorney General R Venkataramani, appearing for the Governor, wondered, "Will the President be now called to ask why she didn't give assent or did she concur? This is nothing but political thicket."

He contended that Article 200 does not provide a period of time in which the Governor has to act. The Governor had multiple options under Article 200, including withholding assent or referring the bills directly to the President.

"Once the assent is withheld, the bills fall and there is no obligation to return them to the Assembly. For Governor withholding assent - he is not bound to go through first proviso," Venkataramani argued.

He also maintained that when there is perceived repugnancy which both the parties are aware of, the Governor is not bound to write an essay on repugnance and communicate it back to the state legislature, as he can simply send it to the President.

"How is the state government expected to know what is in the mind of the Governor?" the bench asked the Attorney General, who said the factual dimensions would come into play in such situations.

He pointed out that the Governor asked the state government to reconstitute the search-cum-selection committee but it fell on deaf ears, so repugnancy was also in the air; it was not something discovered when the bills were sent to him, he said.

The court, however, felt that a framework or some mechanism must be established to prevent deadlocks between the state and the Governor's office.

The bench would continue hearing the matter on Monday.