2 hours ago
2
The Supreme Court connected Thursday questioned Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi’s determination to withhold assent to immoderate bills presented to him by the authorities legislature and said “he seems to person adopted his ain procedure.”
Hearing the TN government’s petitions challenging the Governor’s determination to withhold assent to immoderate bills and to nonstop immoderate to the President, Justice J B Pardiwala, presiding implicit a two-judge bench, said, “it…doesn’t marque immoderate consciousness (Governor) saying that I withhold assent, but volition not inquire you to reconsider the bills and thereby frustrate the 2nd portion of Article 200. He seems to person adopted his ain procedure.”
The bench, besides comprising Justice R Mahadevan, told Attorney General R Venkataramani that helium volition person to amusement the tribunal what weighed with the Governor successful arriving astatine the determination to withhold assent. It wondered what modern worldly was disposable “except 1 missive addressed by the secretary” to explicate however the Governor approached the issue.
“Governor could person drawn the attraction of the government. He could person said a, b, c, d…you request to reconsider. Otherwise however shall the tribunal recognize what weighed with him? You can’t amusement america by mode of an affidavit filed by immoderate different officer. You request to amusement america from immoderate contemporaneous grounds disposable with the bureau of the Governor arsenic to what was discussed, what was looked into, what are the lacunae, what are the loopholes which the Governor found. Whoever that idiosyncratic whitethorn beryllium who guided him and said ‘look sir, these are the deficiencies’…from wherever bash we get each these?” queried Justice Pardiwala.
The AG said helium would spot if the Governor needs to record an affidavit.
Explaining wherefore it was seeking worldly to backmost the Governor’s decision, Justice Pardiwala added, “because they person alleged not conscionable malice successful law, but malice successful information also.”
He told the AG, “today we are called upon to construe conscionable 1 nonfiction 200 which we will, but connected factual aspect, you request to amusement america wherefore the Governor decided to withhold assent.”
Story continues beneath this ad
Venkataramani explained that the Governor had not returned the bills to the authorities assembly for reconsideration but had lone withheld assent. It was aft the assembly reenacted 2 bills that helium sent them for the information of the President, citing repugnancy.
The seat sought to cognize wherefore the Governor had kept the bills pending for 3 years earlier declaring that helium was withholding assent.
“What is thing truthful gross successful the bills which the Governor took 3 years to find?” queried Justice Pardiwala.
Justice Pardiwala pointed retired that the Governor’s determination to withhold assent came lone 3 days aft the SC ruled successful the Punjab Governor’s lawsuit that Governor cannot veto the assembly by sitting implicit bills.
Story continues beneath this ad
“We delivered the judgement…on November 7, 2024. On November 10, the (TN) Governor puts an endorsement — I withhold. Otherwise for him the presumption of instrumentality was crystal cleanable connected November 7. He would person got the judgement that a three-judge seat of the SC had laid down the law.”
The AG said that, arsenic helium understands, “the contention is not fundamentally astir the Governor having acted successful breach of the mandate of Article 200. What they privation indirectly is for this tribunal to springiness its stamp of support connected the legitimacy and the legality of the law.”
His notation was to the bills removing the Governor arsenic Chancellor of the state’s universities.
The tribunal sought to cognize that going by the AG’s argument, what is the Governor expected to bash erstwhile helium withholds assent but does not inquire the Assembly to reconsider.
Story continues beneath this ad
“Your statement is that the Governor ne'er asked them to reconsider…For the clip being, we volition proceed connected the ground that the Governor for X, Y, Z reasons decided to withhold the assent by not asking the assembly to reconsider those bills…Then what is expected of the Governor to bash aft taking this telephone of withholding the assent? How agelong volition helium support withholding the assent? What is helium expected to bash thereafter?”
The AG said that to recognize that, 1 volition person to spell into the past of Article 200.
But Justice Pardiwala said, “we are not funny successful immoderate history. We are lone funny successful giving plain elemental mentation to the articles of the constitution we privation to recognize from you what was the Governor expected to bash aft helium had withheld the assent.”
Justice Pardiwala added, “the Governor had an enactment successful the archetypal lawsuit to notation each 12 bills to the President. But successful his discretion, helium thought it acceptable to notation 2 retired of 12 and for the remaining 10, helium said I withhold. What next?”
The proceeding remained inconclusive and volition resume Friday.
.png "indianexpress.")
.png "khaleejtimes")
.png "arabnews")
.png "gulfnews"){kind=logo}
English (US) · 
Hindi (IN) ·