Court agrees with the Tamil Nadu government’s argument that the Constitution does not provide Governor Ravi the ‘discretion’ to withhold the 10 Bills it re-enacted, or refer them to the President
The Supreme Court on Monday took note of the Tamil Nadu government’s argument that the Constitution does not provide Governor R.N. Ravi “discretion” to withhold the 10 Bills “re-passed” by the State Legislative Assembly.
“Once they have been re-passed, these Bills are put in the same footing as Money Bills. Then you [the Governor] cannot reject...,” Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, heading a three-judge Bench, remarked.
The court was reacting to arguments raised by the State, represented by senior advocates A.M. Singhvi, Mukul Rohatgi, P. Wilson and advocate Sabarish Subramanian, that the first proviso of Article 200 states: “If the Bill is passed again by the House or Houses with or without amendment and presented to the Governor for assent, the Governor shall not withhold assent therefrom”.
But, at one point, the Chief Justice asked whether the Governor had to mandatorily send the Bills back to the House for re-consideration after withholding assent. “Can he simpliciter say ‘I am withholding assent’ without sending the Bills back to the House?” Justice Chandrachud asked. Mr. Singhvi responded that returning the Bills back to the House was a necessary corollary to the withdrawal of assent.
The court also acknowledged the State’s submission that the Governor, having withheld assent and sent back the Bills once, cannot refer the reiterated Bills to the President.
The State had complained to the court that the Governor was holding the Bills back indefinitely, defeating the rights of the people of Tamil Nadu to the benefits of crucial laws passed by the House.
CONTINUED ON PAGE 10
അഭിപ്രായങ്ങളൊന്നുമില്ല:
ഒരു അഭിപ്രായം പോസ്റ്റ് ചെയ്യൂ