Kerala files case in Supreme Court against President’s disapproval of bill

New Delhi:

In an unusual move, the Kerala government has petitioned the Supreme Court against President Drupadi Murmu’s refusal to approve four bills passed by the state assembly.

The plea, filed through lawyer CK Sasi, said the matter was related to the Kerala governor’s act of reserving seven bills for the President, which required his personal attention. None of the seven bills have anything to do with Madhya Pradesh relations.

The state said the bills have been pending against the governor for about two years and that his actions “subverted” the operations of the state Legislature and made them “ineffective and redundant.”

“These bills include public interest bills enacted in the public interest, but the Governor failed to process each bill ‘as expeditiously’ as required under Section 200, rendering these bills invalid,” the complaint states.

The state government said that between February 23 and 29, the Home Ministry informed it that the President had refused to give assent to four of the seven bills – the Universities (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 2021, the Kara The Societies (Amendment) Bill, 2022, the Universities Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2022 and the Universities Laws (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill, 2022.

The petition urges the court to declare the president’s disapproval of the bills without giving reasons unconstitutional.

The Constitution does not specify how long the president can take to approve a bill passed by a state legislature and submit it to Malacañang for consideration or withhold his assent.

The CPI(M)-led Left Democratic Front (LDF) government has named the Union government, secretary to the President of India, Kerala Governor Arif Mohammad Khan and his additional secretary as parties in the case.

Article 361 of the Constitution provides that the President or the Governor shall not be accountable to any court for the exercise and discharge of the powers and duties of his office or for any act done or alleged to be done in the exercise of his powers. and the performance of those powers and duties.

The state government has urged the court to declare Governor Arif Mohammed Khan “illegal” and reserve a total of seven bills, including these four, for consideration by the President, besides several other relief measures.

“The Governor’s conduct of keeping the bill pending for a long and indefinite period and then retaining the bill for consideration by the President without any constitutionally relevant reasons is manifestly arbitrary and contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution (Person before the Law). equality of all persons). Constitution,” the plea said.

Likewise, it added that the assistance and advice provided by the Union of India to the President in refusing to sanction four bills which were entirely within the scope of the State, without disclosing any reasons, was also manifestly arbitrary and in violation of Article 14.

“Moreover, the impugned conduct deprives the people of Kerala of their rights under Article 21 (Protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution and deprives them of the benefits of the welfare legislation enacted by the State Assembly,” it said.

The complaint alleges that the governor’s failure to process bills submitted for approval for a period of 24 months or between seven and sixteen months has rendered the constitutionally mandated functions of the State Department Legislative Assembly ineffective and wasteful. “Although the Governor is part of the Legislative Assembly, the Governor has rendered the existence of the State Legislative Assembly meaningless,” the statement said.

The statement said the governor’s actions clearly lacked sincerity. “The Governor’s actions disrupted the delicate balance between the three organs of state envisioned by the Constitution, first the elected executive that drafts and introduces bills, and then the state legislatures that pass them. The Governor’s actions also upended the federal structure of the Constitution. , reserves for the President (acting on the aid and advice of the Federal Cabinet) bills that fall entirely within the jurisdiction of the country as provided for in the Constitution,” it said.

The plea said the governor often addressed the media and openly criticized the state government, especially the chief minister.

“Whether or not the reservation against the President is the result of this (criticism), bringing before the President a bill for which the Governor has been awaiting for as long as two years is a gross injustice to the office he holds and fulfills his constitutional obligations. Responsibilities. It can only be said that the Governor is ready to make the Government of Kerala and the State Legislative Assembly function in accordance with the Constitution and the law at any cost.”

The state government said the governor discharged his constitutional duties after submitting a bill to the Supreme Court last year, assent to one bill and forwarding the remaining seven bills to the President on November 28, 2023.

The president has since reportedly refused to approve four of the bills.

“The Union government recommends that the President of India withhold approval of bills passed by the state legislative assemblies 11 to 24 months ago and that are entirely within the purview of the state governments. This act subverts the federal structure that undermines the Constitution of India and seriously violates the constitutional rights. the realm of the state.”

Although the Constitution does not specify when the President shall approve or deny assent to a bill, Article 200 provides: When a bill has been passed by the legislative assembly of a state or, in the case of a state with a legislative committee, the bill has been passed When passed by both Houses of the State Legislature, it shall be submitted to the Governor, who shall declare his assent or dissent to the bill, or reserve the bill for the consideration of the President.

“Provided, however, that if the bill is not a money bill, the Governor may return the bill as soon as practicable after it has been submitted to him for assent, together with a message requesting the House to reconsider the bill or any particular provision thereof, and in particular, will consider the desirability of proposing any such amendments as he proposes in his message, and when the bill is returned the House shall reconsider the bill accordingly if the bill is again passed by the House or the House with or without amendments and submitted to the consent of the Governor, who shall not withhold his consent,” it said.

“It is further provided that if the Governor is of the opinion that any bill, if enacted into law, would dilute the powers of the High Court and thereby jeopardize the position which the Court is designed to fill under this Constitution,” it added.

The Supreme Court in December 2023 had challenged Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi’s delay in processing bills submitted for his assent since January 2020, asking why state governors were waiting for political parties to approach the Supreme Court.

Like Kerala Governor Khan and Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, Ravi has often clashed with Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Stalin.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)