Why SC asked TN governor to stop playing politics and respect Constitution

medium nocaption120131669In a massive win for the MK Stalin’s Tamil Nadu government, the Supreme Court has ruled that Governor RN Ravi's decision to withhold assent to ten key Bills was not only illegal but also arbitrary.The Supreme Court thus deemed the 10 Bills, long delayed by the governor, as assented. The court also set strict timelines for governors to approve or reject state Bills. Assent must be granted within a month, with a three-month window for reconsideration or presidential referral.The judgment will apply to all governors and may lead to many more opposition-ruled states approaching courts against governors obstructing legislative work.As the Constitution restricts itself to saying that the governor must act “as soon as possible” after a Bill is sent to his office for assent, but does not prescribe any timeline, a governor could, till now, delay his/her assent, a prerequisite for a legislation to become law.In Tamil Nadu's case, one bill was pending for over five years.The apex court was delivering its judgment on a petition filed by the Tamil Nadu government against governor RN Ravi's refusal to grant assent to several bills passed by the state legislative assembly, including those concerning the appointment of vice-chancellors to state universities.A governor is a chancellor of all state-controlled universities. However, it’s a ceremonial position and a chancellor cannot appoint vice-chancellors or exert administrative control over universities.Constitution does not give governors veto powerThe Supreme Court bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said the governor showed “scant respect” to various verdicts of the apex court while referring the Bills to the President after they were re-sent to him by the state assembly following due reconsideration.The court held that the governor has no option but to give his assent once a Bill has been sent back to him after reconsideration by the assembly. The Constitution does not allow him to exercise “absolute veto” or “pocket veto” by indefinitely delaying decisions, the bench said.Justice Pardiwala, who wrote the judgment, said as per Article 200 of the Constitution, a governor has only three options when a Bill is placed before him — one, grant assent; two, withhold it and send it back for reconsideration; and three, reserve it for the President.It said a Bill could be reserved for the President only at the first instance and not when it was sent after reconsideration by the assembly. “The only exception is when the Bill presented in the second round is different from the first version,” Justice Pardiwala said.On Tamil Nadu governor’s contention that he could withhold assent to bills without sending them back to the assembly for reconsideration, the court said such an option was not available under the Constitution. Governor should not act as per political expediencyThe court said the governor did not act in good faith. It pointed out that the Bills were kept pending by the governor for a long time and then sent to the President shortly after the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Punjab governor’s case, which had made it clear that governors cannot withhold assent by simply not taking any action on Bills.The court said that if a governor does not follow the timeline, their decision can be challenged in court. The court also said a governor should follow the Constitution and not act based on political reasons.TN political parties welcome the verdictTamil Nadu Chief Minister M K Stalin welcomed the Supreme Court's verdict, hailing it as ‘historic’.DMK MP and senior advocate P Wilson termed the Supreme Court's order as a landmark judgment which has made governors obligated to give assent to the Bills passed by a democratically elected govt without delay.Since the Bill removing the governor as chancellor of state universities was also one among the 10 Bills which were deemed as granted assent, Wilson said, only those who are nominated by TN govt can serve as chancellors henceforth.He said that based on the SC judgment, the turning down of Tamil Nadu’s NEET (National Eligibility cum Entrance Test) Bill by the President could also be challenged.DMK allies, including VCK (Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi) demanded the removal of Governor R N Ravi. “The SC has taught a fitting lesson to the TN governor. The President should remove him,” said VCK president Thol Thirumavalavan.CPM state secretary P Shanmugam urged the President to recall the governor immediately. MDMK general secretary Vaiko said Ravi has lost the moral right to remain in the post.The verdict ends logjam in TNThe long-term constitutional consequences apart, the immediate impact of the ruling on the governor's duties and powers will end the stalemate over appointment of vice-chancellors to nine of Tamil Nadu’s 22 state universities. Many of these universities have remained headless for more than two years as Raj Bhavan at on the Bills.These Bills empowered the state govt to remove vice-chancellors on the ground of wilful omission of or refusal to implement provisions of law or abuse of powers vested in them.Nomination of members to senates and syndicates, as also academic councils of universities, will also become the sole prerogative of state government henceforth. “The Bills have now become Acts, and they would come into force once the state govt notifies them. The governor will not have any more role to play in the appointment of vice-chancellors to state universities,” senior advocate and DMK MP P Wilson told TOI.The Tamil Nadu government can now proceed with the constitution of search panels for the appointment of vice-chancellors, he said.