GOVERNOR UNDER SCRUTINY

The DMK government's long tug of war with Tamil Nadu governor R.N. Ravi over his protracted inaction on 12 bills is reaching a climax. The Supreme Court has asked hard questions on the path taken by the governor. On February 7, it wondered if the governor could simply sit on bills on the presumption that they were "repugnant to the Constitution" (under Article 254, a proposed state law is 'repugnant' if it is found inconsistent with/encroaching into a central law).

- By Amarnath K. Menon

The aforementioned 12 bills, mostly dealing with the appointments of vice-chancellors in state universities, were sent to Ravi for his consent between January 2020 and April 2023. With no sign of movement, the state finally approached the SC in November 2023. Ravi had then speedily referred two of the bills to the President and withheld consent on the remaining 10. Under Article 200, when presented with bills, a state governor can either give assent, withhold it or refer the bills to the President for consideration. Under the first proviso of the Article, if assent is withheld, a governor must return the bill to the House with a 'message' to reconsider it or suggest amendments. Crucially, if the assembly sends the bill back to the governor, the latter's office cannot withhold it again, and has to grant consent.

And that's what the TN assembly did-within days, it passed the 10 withheld bills all over again in a special session and returned them to the governor. Cornered, Ravi referred all 10 bills to the President, who assented to one, rejected seven and did not consider two.