Tamil Nadu Governor's Bill Assent Controversy Unfolds in Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is reviewing the Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi's decision to withhold assent to state legislature bills, amidst debates on gubernatorial powers under Article 201. The Tamil Nadu government challenges this, emphasizing the Governor's recommendatory role and opposing arbitrary actions.

In a crucial hearing on the Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi's decision to withhold assent to numerous bills passed by the state legislature, the Supreme Court on Friday deliberated on the extent of gubernatorial powers concerning bill approval. Representing the Tamil Nadu Governor, Attorney General R. Venkataramani argued that if a bill passed by the state legislature is found to be repugnant, it need not be returned for legislative reconsideration unless its defects, other than repugnancy, are correctable.

The discussions took place before a Bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan. The Bench sought clarity from the Attorney General regarding Article 201 of the Constitution, which mandates that a bill reserved for the President's consideration must either receive assent or be withheld. They questioned whether the President could decline assent on repugnancy grounds, which the AG affirmed.

The court further questioned the AG on the Governor's decision to withhold, rather than reject, the bill's assent, pointing out that a truly repugnant bill would warrant outright refusal. The AG explained that withholding assent renders the bill non-effective but includes provisions for potential further action. Criticizing Governor Ravi for independently withholding assent, the court, after hearing today's arguments, scheduled the next hearing on Monday, February 10. The Tamil Nadu government has challenged the Governor's stance, underlining the limited, recommendatory nature of gubernatorial authority per constitutional provisions. (ANI)

(With inputs from agencies.)