"What was he doing for three years?": SC | Supreme Court | DY Chandrachud | RN Ravi | MK Stalin
- 5 months ago
"These bills were pending since 2020. What was he doing for three years?"" The SC slammed Tamil Nadu governor RN Ravi on Monday. Let us discuss the full story but before that, if you are watching this on Facebook do like our page and if you are watching this on Youtube do subscribe to HW News English.
The Supreme Court on Monday came down heavy on Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi, as it resumed hearing the Tamil Nadu government's plea against delays in clearing bills. ""These bills were pending since 2020. What was he doing for three years?"" The bench headed by CJI DY Chandrachud said.
The court - hearing similar pleas by the Punjab and Kerala governments - also raised a point of law - ""can a Governor withhold assent on a bill without sending it back to the Assembly?""
Now what made the court slam the Tamil Nadu governor?
The court's strong observations come days after Mr RN Ravi returned ten bills - two of which were passed by the earlier AIADMK government.
The Tamil Nadu Assembly then held a special session on Saturday to re-adopt all ten bills, which were sent back to the Governor for his assent.
To which the SC said: ""Assembly has passed the bills again and sent it to the Governor. Let us see what the Governor does,"" and the court adjourned the matter till December 1.
The Tamil Nadu government has accused the BJP-appointed Governor of deliberately delaying the bills' clearance and scuttling the state's development by ""undermining the elected administration"".
Let's quickly discuss what the Constitution says about the role of the governor in giving assent to the bills.
When a Bill passed by the legislature of a state is presented to the Governor, the Governor has four options: (1) grant assent to the Bill; (2) withhold assent to the Bills; (3) return the Bills for reconsideration; or (4) reserve the Bill for the consideration of the President.
However, Article 200 also has a proviso which says that the Governor “may, as soon as possible” return Bills other than Money Bills, with a message requesting that the House reconsider it in parts or in whole. However, once the Legislative House reconsiders the Bill and sends it to the Governor once again, the Governor “shall not withhold assent there from”.
The proviso says the Governor must return the Bill “as soon as possible” but does not prescribe a specific timeframe which is where th conflict arises between the governors and the opposition rullled CM's.
Apart from Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Telangana, and Punjab too, have sought the intervention of the Supreme Court on the issue.
It is very interesting that such tug-of-war between the governor and the CM is only happening in opposition-ruled states. Such instances will only result in a lack of respect among the two most important authorities which is not healthy for a democracy.
Do let us know in the comments box whether you feel the governors are creating hurdles for the state government which is actually halting the development of th
The Supreme Court on Monday came down heavy on Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi, as it resumed hearing the Tamil Nadu government's plea against delays in clearing bills. ""These bills were pending since 2020. What was he doing for three years?"" The bench headed by CJI DY Chandrachud said.
The court - hearing similar pleas by the Punjab and Kerala governments - also raised a point of law - ""can a Governor withhold assent on a bill without sending it back to the Assembly?""
Now what made the court slam the Tamil Nadu governor?
The court's strong observations come days after Mr RN Ravi returned ten bills - two of which were passed by the earlier AIADMK government.
The Tamil Nadu Assembly then held a special session on Saturday to re-adopt all ten bills, which were sent back to the Governor for his assent.
To which the SC said: ""Assembly has passed the bills again and sent it to the Governor. Let us see what the Governor does,"" and the court adjourned the matter till December 1.
The Tamil Nadu government has accused the BJP-appointed Governor of deliberately delaying the bills' clearance and scuttling the state's development by ""undermining the elected administration"".
Let's quickly discuss what the Constitution says about the role of the governor in giving assent to the bills.
When a Bill passed by the legislature of a state is presented to the Governor, the Governor has four options: (1) grant assent to the Bill; (2) withhold assent to the Bills; (3) return the Bills for reconsideration; or (4) reserve the Bill for the consideration of the President.
However, Article 200 also has a proviso which says that the Governor “may, as soon as possible” return Bills other than Money Bills, with a message requesting that the House reconsider it in parts or in whole. However, once the Legislative House reconsiders the Bill and sends it to the Governor once again, the Governor “shall not withhold assent there from”.
The proviso says the Governor must return the Bill “as soon as possible” but does not prescribe a specific timeframe which is where th conflict arises between the governors and the opposition rullled CM's.
Apart from Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Telangana, and Punjab too, have sought the intervention of the Supreme Court on the issue.
It is very interesting that such tug-of-war between the governor and the CM is only happening in opposition-ruled states. Such instances will only result in a lack of respect among the two most important authorities which is not healthy for a democracy.
Do let us know in the comments box whether you feel the governors are creating hurdles for the state government which is actually halting the development of th