Governor's Bill Assent Standoff Raises Constitutional Questions

The Supreme Court has questioned the impasse created when governors withhold assent on state legislature bills without communicating with the state government. The court seeks clarity on how deadlocks caused by perceived repugnancy with central laws should be resolved, highlighting constitutional powers under Article 200.

The Supreme Court has raised concerns about a potential impasse caused when a governor withholds assent on bills passed by the state legislative assembly without communicating his decision. This situation underscores a constitutional challenge, particularly when perceived repugnancy with central laws is at play.

The bench, which included Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, emphasized the necessity for prompt communication from the governor to the state government when such repugnancies arise. The bench questioned the status of bills reserved for presidential consideration and highlighted the need to address the resulting legislative deadlock.

The matter is part of ongoing litigation by the Tamil Nadu government. They challenge the governor's actions under Article 200, which outlines the governor's authority in approving or withholding bills. This constitutional debate is due for further hearing, with a verdict expected after comprehensive arguments are presented.

(With inputs from agencies.)