Overview
Tamil Nadu Assembly Unanimously Readopts 10 Bills
Today, the Tamil Nadu assembly made a unanimous decision, approving ten bills previously cleared but later returned by Governor RN Ravi. This action followed Chief Minister MK Stalin’s proposal to revive the bills that the Governor, RN Ravi, had sent back without providing any reasons. Following the readoption, the bills were forwarded to the Governor for assent.
Ahead of the readoption of the bills, the main Opposition AIADMK and the BJP chose to exit the Assembly. Their departure was prompted by questions surrounding the need for a special meeting, especially when the government had
already taken the matter to the Supreme Court.
The political tension escalated when the Governor of Tamil Nadu, RN Ravi, returned the bills on November 13. In response, Chief Minister M K Stalin expressed his displeasure in the Assembly, highlighting that the Governor’s communication merely stated, “I withhold assent” without providing any rationale.
Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Stalin criticised the Governor, stating that he had returned the bills due to his whims and fancies. He deemed it undemocratic and anti-people to withhold assent, emphasising that the Governor couldn’t withhold consent if the bills were passed in the Assembly again and sent to him. He criticised the Governor’s
actions as disregarding the State’s elected representatives
and threatening democratic principles.
In the Past: State Governments’ Legal Battle Against Governor’s Delays
It may be recalled that the Tamil Nadu government had filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court against Governor R.N. Ravi. The government accused the Governor of creating a “constitutional deadlock” by unexplainably delaying or even failing to consider and assent to crucial bills passed by the Legislature.
This obstruction was seen as a threat to day-to-day governance and posed a risk of bringing administration in the State to a grinding halt.
However, the court had sought a response from the Centre regarding the allegations against the Governor.
The State had asserted that the Governor positioned himself as a political rival to the legitimately elected government. His inactions had led to an impasse between the constitutional head of the State and the elected government. The petition emphasised that the Governor was undermining the citizen’s mandate.
It may also be remembered that Kerala had moved the Supreme Court against its Governor, becoming the third State to take such a step after TN and Punjab. The Kerala government highlighted extended delays, stating that three bills had been awaiting the Governor’s approval for over two years and another three for over a year.
