Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi has “withheld assent” for certain Bills passed by the Legislative Assembly, and has not “returned” them to the legislature or to the government for “reconsideration”, informed official sources told The Hindu on November 17. Technically, therefore, these Bills cannot be “readopted” by the House, as was done when the Governor “returned” the NEET Exemption Bill last February, and a Bill seeking to ban online gambling in March 2023.
Chief Minister M.K. Stalin is likely to move a resolution on the Bills at Saturday’s Special Session of the House, explaining the government’s reasoning that enacting these legislations is inevitable, sources said. The House resolution along with the “re-enacted” Bills could then be sent to the Raj Bhavan, they added.
Most of the Bills for which the Governor had “withheld assent” are related to a proposal to amend the statutes of certain State universities to enable the Chief Minister to take over the role of Chancellor, replacing the Governor.
Explained | Governor R.N Ravi vs. M.K. Stalin’s government in Tamil Nadu: a timeline of events
Governor’s options
As per Article 200 of the Indian Constitution, the Governor is empowered to either “grant assent”, “withhold assent”, or “reserve” a Bill for consideration by the President. A fourth option is to “return” the Bill, “requesting reconsideration by the House”.
Noting that Governors generally do not exercise the option of “withholding assent”, former Lok Sabha Secretary General P.D.T. Achary told The Hindu that the only option for the State Government is to challenge such an action in the Supreme Court. “Usually, the Governor can withhold assent to a Bill at the behest of the government, when for some reason it does not want the legislation to be enacted after the Bill is sent to Raj Bhavan,” he said.
Asked if a legislative response was possible, he replied in the negative, arguing that it would not serve any purpose when the Governor had already withheld assent. Mr. Achary was of the opinion that withholding assent to a Bill by the Governor, an appointee of the President, neutralises the entire legislative exercise by an elected legislature enjoying the support of the people.
When a Bill which is returned for reconsideration is “readopted” by the House and sent back to the Governor, the latter has no choice but to affirmatively act on it.
‘Bill is dead’
Earlier in April, Mr. Ravi had contended that if a Governor “withholds assent” to a Bill, it means that the “Bill is dead”. He recalled that withholding assent has been defined by the Supreme Court as “the Bill falling through”, implying that the Bill is dead. “It is a decent language used instead of the word ‘reject’. When you say ‘withhold’, the Bill is dead,” he had argued.
Senior Cabinet Minister Thangam Thennarasu had then accused the Governor of indulging in “word play”.
Significantly, although the Governor, in an interview in May, had said that he had “withheld assent” to eight Bills pertaining to universities, he had not communicated his decision to the legislature or the State government.
Sources indicated that after the State government recently moved the Supreme Court, accusing the Governor of sitting on Bills, the Raj Bhavan then conveyed that he had “withheld assent” for the Bills.
(With inputs from T. Ramakrishnan)
