On Monday, the Supreme Court resumed hearing the Tamil Nadu government's plea against delays in clearing bills and directed tough questions at Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi. The court, also handling similar pleas from Punjab and Kerala, questioned whether a Governor can withhold assent on a bill without sending it back to the Assembly.

The court's scrutiny follows Governor Ravi's recent return of ten bills, including two from the previous AIADMK government. In response, the Tamil Nadu Assembly held a special session to re-adopt all ten bills and sent them back to the Governor for assent.

Noting this development, the court adjourned the matter until December 1, stating, "Once bills are re-passed, they are on the same footing as money bills."

Accusing the BJP-appointed Governor of intentionally delaying bills and undermining the state's development, the Tamil Nadu government, led by the ruling DMK, argued that the Governor's actions were impeding the will of the people. They sought a specific timeframe for bill clearance.

Among the pending bills is one limiting the Governor's authority to appoint Vice Chancellors of state-run universities and another seeking prosecution of former AIADMK ministers.

During the hearing, senior advocates Abhishek Singhvi and Mukul Rohatgi, representing the Tamil Nadu government, argued that the Governor violated the Constitution by simply stating "I withhold assent" without providing reasons. Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta, representing Governor Ravi, countered that the Governor is not merely a technical supervisor.

The court pointed out that the Governor, under Article 200, has three options: assent to bills, withhold assent, or send them to the President of India. It questioned whether the Governor can withhold assent without sending the bill back to the Assembly.

Governor Ravi had previously delayed the NEET Exemption Bill and a bill on online gaming, adopting a similar stance. The court observed that the Governor had assented to 162 out of 181 bills presented to him.

The legal battle underscores the tension between the elected administration and the Governor, with the court closely examining the constitutional dimensions of the Governor's role in the legislative process.

On Monday, the Supreme Court resumed hearing the Tamil Nadu government's plea against delays in clearing bills and directed tough questions at Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi. The court, also handling similar pleas from Punjab and Kerala, questioned whether a Governor can withhold assent on a bill without sending it back to the Assembly.

The court's scrutiny follows Governor Ravi's recent return of ten bills, including two from the previous AIADMK government. In response, the Tamil Nadu Assembly held a special session to re-adopt all ten bills and sent them back to the Governor for assent.

Noting this development, the court adjourned the matter until December 1, stating, "Once bills are re-passed, they are on the same footing as money bills."

Accusing the BJP-appointed Governor of intentionally delaying bills and undermining the state's development, the Tamil Nadu government, led by the ruling DMK, argued that the Governor's actions were impeding the will of the people. They sought a specific timeframe for bill clearance.

Among the pending bills is one limiting the Governor's authority to appoint Vice Chancellors of state-run universities and another seeking prosecution of former AIADMK ministers.

During the hearing, senior advocates Abhishek Singhvi and Mukul Rohatgi, representing the Tamil Nadu government, argued that the Governor violated the Constitution by simply stating "I withhold assent" without providing reasons. Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta, representing Governor Ravi, countered that the Governor is not merely a technical supervisor.

The court pointed out that the Governor, under Article 200, has three options: assent to bills, withhold assent, or send them to the President of India. It questioned whether the Governor can withhold assent without sending the bill back to the Assembly.

Governor Ravi had previously delayed the NEET Exemption Bill and a bill on online gaming, adopting a similar stance. The court observed that the Governor had assented to 162 out of 181 bills presented to him.

The legal battle underscores the tension between the elected administration and the Governor, with the court closely examining the constitutional dimensions of the Governor's role in the legislative process.