Kerala moves SC: ‘Governor referring Bills, President withholding assent’

The Left Democratic Front-led Kerala government said that on February 23 and 29, the Ministry of Home Affairs informed it that President Droupadi Murmu has withheld assent to four Bills: University Laws (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 2021, Kerala Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Bill, 2022, University Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2022 and the The University Laws (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill, 2022. The plea listed the Union Home Secretary, the Secretary to the President, the Kerala Governor and the Additional Chief Secretary to the Governor as respondents.

The state government contended that “the action of the Governor in keeping the Bills pending for as long as two years has subverted the functioning of the legislature of the State and rendered its existence itself ineffective and otiose”. The pending Bills include public interest Bills, which are for the public good, and “even these have been rendered ineffective by the Governor not dealing with each one of them as soon as possible as required by the proviso to Article 200”, the petition stated.

According to the plea, “the Governor has often been addressing the media and making public criticisms against the State Government and the Chief Minister, in particular, and whether the reservation for the President is as a result of this or not, to refer Bills which have been pending before the Governor for as long as 2 years to the President is a grave injustice to the post that the Governor holds and to his constitutional duties as well. One can only say that at no cost was the Governor prepared to allow the Government of Kerala and the State Legislative Assembly to function in accordance with the Constitution and the laws”.

It said that after an SC nudge, the Governor had granted assent to 1 out of 8 bills and referred 7 others to the President, who in turn withheld assent to 4 of them.

Among others, the plea prayed the court to call for the records of the Governor reserving the four Bills for the President and of the President withholding assent to them and to declare the actions of the Governor and the President as “unconstitutional”.

The state contended that “in making these references” to the President, “in no place does the Governor even mention the fact that he has kept the Bills pending with him for as long as 11 to 24 months”.

“If this had been mentioned, the President would have been put on enquiry, as to in not having referred the Bills, ‘as soon as possible’, in accordance with the provisions of the proviso to Article 200…”.

“This shows that the Bills had been kept pending without any reason whatsoever rendering the very implementation of the Bills and the purpose and functioning of the Legislative Assembly ineffective and otiose. If the timelines were mentioned, the President would have been put to notice on why the Bills were being referred, not ‘as soon as possible’, but after two years,” it said.

The plea contended that the Governor’s action was a “deliberate attempt to avoid carrying out his constitutional duty and function under Article 200 of the Constitution, rendering the phrase “as soon as possible” contained in the proviso to Article 200 a dead letter and urged the court to declare the reference to the President “unconstitutional and lacking in good faith”.