The Supreme Court on Friday observed that there "cannot be an absolute deadlock" in a democracy. A bench of justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan remarked that if an "impasse" has been created on account of withholding of assent to bills by the governor, the same "has to be cleared".
The bench further questioned if Tamil Nadu governor RN Ravi could simply withhold assent to bills passed by the state legislature on his own perception that the bills were repugnant to the central laws without communicating the reasons to the state government.
The court asked if it was not incumbent on the governor to return the bills to the assembly as soon as possible in terms of the first proviso to Article 200 of the Constitution, if he believed that they were repugnant.
"If the governor feels that the bills suffer from repugnancy, should he not bring it to the notice of the government? How does the government get to know? The government might have corrected it (defects) had the governor communicated that the bills were repugnant (to central laws)," the bench verbally remarked.
The bench said "repugnancy is one of relevant considerations" but "is repugnancy to be put to such a level? Why withhold assent if you (governor) have noticed repugnancy?" The bench put these queries to attorney general R Venkataramani who was appearing for the governor.
The bench on a lighter note remarked that "it is not that the governor was oblivious to first proviso (to Article 200 of the Constitution). It is the ingenious" of the attorney general.
The bench questioned the AG whether by first withholding assent and then referring them to the President, has not the governor rendered the entire proviso "otiose". Justice Pardiwala added "if we accept your (AG) argument that the bills were repugnant we will have to give a finding whether they were repugnant or not. Alright, if we have to enter that arena then we will enter it."
At a previous hearing (on Thursday) the bench had orally observed that Tamil Nadu governor RN Ravi "seems to have adopted his own procedure".
Budget with ET
Tax calculator
The court asked if it was not incumbent on the governor to return the bills to the assembly as soon as possible in terms of the first proviso to Article 200 of the Constitution, if he believed that they were repugnant.
"If the governor feels that the bills suffer from repugnancy, should he not bring it to the notice of the government? How does the government get to know? The government might have corrected it (defects) had the governor communicated that the bills were repugnant (to central laws)," the bench verbally remarked.
The bench said "repugnancy is one of relevant considerations" but "is repugnancy to be put to such a level? Why withhold assent if you (governor) have noticed repugnancy?" The bench put these queries to attorney general R Venkataramani who was appearing for the governor.
The bench on a lighter note remarked that "it is not that the governor was oblivious to first proviso (to Article 200 of the Constitution). It is the ingenious" of the attorney general.
The bench questioned the AG whether by first withholding assent and then referring them to the President, has not the governor rendered the entire proviso "otiose". Justice Pardiwala added "if we accept your (AG) argument that the bills were repugnant we will have to give a finding whether they were repugnant or not. Alright, if we have to enter that arena then we will enter it."
At a previous hearing (on Thursday) the bench had orally observed that Tamil Nadu governor RN Ravi "seems to have adopted his own procedure".
