Introduction:

In the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 1239/2023), the Supreme Court convened to address the constitutional impasse arising from the Governor’s delay in granting assent to bills passed by the Tamil Nadu legislative assembly.

Arguments of the parties

The arguments presented by both parties underscored the need to resolve the constitutional question surrounding the Governor’s authority to refer bills to the President after they have been re-passed by the legislature. Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the State, advocated for a detailed hearing on this issue, highlighting the limitations set by Article 200 and the Governor’s options of granting, withholding assent, or referring to the President.

CJI Chandrachud emphasized the significance of dialogue between the Chief Minister and the Governor to seek a resolution while acknowledging the Court’s continued engagement with the constitutional issue. The Attorney General cited a similar resolution in West Bengal and expressed hope for a similar outcome in Tamil Nadu.

However, Singhvi urged the Court to maintain status quo to prevent premature action by the President on the bills. Despite this, the CJI expressed reluctance to enjoin the President’s actions, deeming it inappropriate.

Court’s Analysis

The Court decided to reconvene in January 2024 to further deliberate on the matter, seeking a potential solution through communication between the concerned parties.

In a backdrop marked by the Governor’s withholding of assent on ten bills followed by their re-enactment by the Assembly and subsequent referral to the President, the Court grappled with the Governor’s actions, invoking Article 200 and questioning the legitimacy of referring bills after exercising one of the prescribed options.