Supreme Court’s Landmark Decision in Indian Legislative Process
In a pivotal move, the Supreme Court of India is deliberating on the establishment of guidelines to define the circumstances under which state governors can refer bills passed by state legislatures to the President for assent. This development arises from a petition filed by the Kerala government, highlighting the inaction of Kerala Governor Arif Mohammed Khan in granting assent to bills approved by the state assembly.
Also read- Supreme Court Lifts Stay On WFI Elections, Overrules Punjab And Haryana HC’s Decision (lawchakra.in)
The apex court, led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, expressed strong disapproval of Governor Khan’s prolonged delay in addressing eight bills passed by the Kerala state legislature. The court’s decision to consider formulating guidelines was influenced by Senior Counsel and former Attorney General KK Venugopal’s mention of Governor Khan forwarding seven bills to the President.
The bench, which also includes Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, initially hesitated to frame guidelines, as this was not a specific request in the original petition. However, they later allowed the Kerala government to amend its plea, thereby seeking directives for establishing guidelines on the Governor’s role in referring bills to the President under Article 200 of the Constitution.
Chief Justice Chandrachud remarked,
“No reason has been given by the governor to keep the bills pending. As we have observed in the Punjab judgment, the power of the governor cannot be utilized to pause the law-making exercise of the legislature. It is only after the interference of this court and after the notice was issued that the Governor came into action. One bill was passed, and seven bills were sent for the consideration of the President.”
The court urged Attorney General R Venkataramani to facilitate a meeting between the Governor and Chief Minister to discuss other pending bills referred in September.
Also read- Supreme Court Rejects Plea For Gujarati As Additional Court Language In Gujarat (lawchakra.in)
“Let us hope that some political sagacity takes over the state, and we hope some sagacity prevails. Otherwise, we are here to lay down the law and do our duty under the Constitution,”
Chief Justice Chandrachud added, instructing Venugopal to amend the petition regarding guidelines for separate consideration.
In a previous verdict regarding the Punjab Governor, the Supreme Court had clearly defined the limits of action by Governors, ruling that they do not have the power to veto legislative actions or indefinitely withhold bills passed by the legislature.
This move by the Supreme Court to potentially establish clear guidelines for governors’ roles in bill referral marks a significant step in clarifying constitutional duties and powers, ensuring a more streamlined legislative process in the states.
Also read- Supreme Court Questions Centre’s Decision To Extend Delhi CS Naresh Kumar’s Tenure (lawchakra.in)
