SC weighs in on Tamil Nadu vs Governor battle: ‘People are suffering’

During hearing, Justice Paridwala said, “People are suffering, the state is suffering.”

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi said that “under the law, if the state legislature passes a bill, the Governor can ask for it to be reconsidered withholding assent, (he can) ask for reconsideration. If post reconsideration, the same Bill is re-enacted, or reaffirmed, then under Article 200 of the Constitution the Governor has no option but to grant assent because this is our constitutional framework. If he does not do that, the entire system of democracy fails”.

The senior counsel said that “the legislative assembly knows the demands of the people and passes laws. Those laws have supremacy as far as the legislative assembly is concerned”. Rohatgi submitted that “the constitution is very clear that if the Governor does not grant assent in the first round, he has to and shall grant assent in the second round. There is only one exception which relates to the High Court”.

Justice Pardiwala referred to a situation where the Bill sent to the state legislature is re-enacted but not to the satisfaction of the Governor and sought to know what would happen then.

Rohatgi said “he has no choice. Suppose he says the whole Bill is unconstitutional or parts require a review. He sends it back with this message, then this will be deliberated by the House. The House after that message either accepts his views and amends the Act or goes by its decision. Otherwise, the system of democracy will fail in this country. On one hand, there are crores of people and on the other, there are delegates who are doing their job. The one person, however high its office may be, he has to act according to the Constitution.”

Senior Advocate A M Singhvi appearing for the state government said the option of referring to the President has to be done at the first instance and not as an afterthought. He contended that it was a case of the Governor simply doing “nothing”. Singhvi argued the Governor can withhold his assent and send it back to the legislature as per the first part of Article 200. If he does so, and if the state legislature reconsiders and sends it back, he has “no option but to grant assent”, the senior counsel said, adding after this stage, the Governor no longer can reserve the bill for the President’s assent.

Singhvi further said that it is not constitutional. “He is creating a new Constitution for himself… That is nothing but an illegal argument.”

The hearing remained inconclusive and will resume on Thursday.