Begin typing your search...

    Withheld Bills are dead: Guv; earns rebuke from CM Stalin

    During an interaction with civil service aspirants at Raj Bhavan earlier on Thursday, Ravi had said the Article 200 of the Constitution gave him three options while considering a Bill: approve it, grant assent, or reserve for President’s nod.

    Withheld Bills are dead: Guv; earns rebuke from CM Stalin
    X
    Chief Minister MK Stalin and Governor RN Ravi

    CHENNAI: Furious over Governor RN Ravi’s comment that his office withholding a Bill adopted by the Assembly means it was “rejected”, Chief Minister MK Stalin said the Governor was “exceeding his Constitutional brief” and “setting a very bad precedent” by carelessly expressing views in public about his stand on administrative issues.

    During an interaction with civil service aspirants at Raj Bhavan earlier on Thursday, Ravi had said the Article 200 of the Constitution gave him three options while considering a Bill: approve it, grant assent, or reserve for President’s nod.

    “Withholding a Bill does not mean that I am holding it. The Constitutional bench of the Supreme Court defines that withholding means the Bill is dead. It was a decent language used for the word rejected,’’ he said.

    Taking strong exception to the comment, which came against the backdrop of the running feud between the Raj Bhavan and State government over the long list of legislations pending with him, Stalin charged the Governor with spoiling the administrative discipline by making wrong statements about Assembly procedures.

    “I register my strong condemnation to the Governor for continuously acting against the interest of the State in violation of his oath,” Stalin said.

    The Chief Minister also accused Ravi of shunning his administrative responsibility by not giving assent to Bills adopted by the elected legislature. The Governor, who took an oath of secrecy, making a careless public statement about his stand on an administrative issue was in violation of the Constitution, he said.

    Quoting the Shamsher Singh vs State of Punjab verdict in which the apex court held that the “Governor was only a shorthand expression of the State government”, he said it was not fair on the part of the Governor and it does not conform to the law to withhold assent to a non-money Bill re-adopted and re-sent by the legislature.

    “It could only be construed as paralysing the State administration. It is unbecoming of a person holding a Constitutional position to withhold something instead of bravely accepting or facing anything,” he added.

    Visit news.dtnext.in to explore our interactive epaper!

    Download the DT Next app for more exciting features!

    Click here for iOS

    Click here for Android

    DTNEXT Bureau
    Next Story