Today, On 14th July, The Supreme Court deferred Kerala’s plea on the Governor’s delay in bill assent after the Centre opposed its withdrawal. AG Venkataramani and SG Mehta urged tagging the matter with the pending presidential reference under Article 143.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court postponed to July 25 the petitions filed by the Kerala government against the Governor regarding the delay in approving bills passed by the state assembly.
A bench consisting of Justices P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar deferred the case after Attorney General R. Venkataramani requested additional time.
Senior advocate K. K. Venugopal, representing the Kerala government, sought to withdraw the petition, arguing that it had become irrelevant following a recent ruling in the Tamil Nadu Governor case.
Also Read: Supreme Court to Frame Guidelines on Governors’ Bill Referral Powers
Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta opposed this withdrawal and suggested that the court wait for the Supreme Court’s decision on the presidential reference under Article 143 of the Constitution concerning the assent to bills.
Mehta proposed that the Kerala government’s petition could be combined with this presidential reference.
Venugopal expressed confusion, stating,
“Why my lords are hesitant for the state to withdraw the petition? There has to be some rationale..this only means both parties will charge money.”
The bench clarified,
“We will make it very clear, tentatively there can’t be an objection to withdraw.”
The matter was subsequently scheduled for July 25.
Also Read: Kerala Government Appeals to Supreme Court Over Governor’s Bill Assent Delay
The Supreme Court, On April 22, indicated that it would investigate whether the recent judgment regarding Tamil Nadu’s pleasetting timelines for granting assent to bills addressed the issues raised by the Kerala government.
Acting on the Tamil Nadu government’s plea, the Supreme Court, on April 8, invalidated the reservation of ten bills for presidential consideration during the second round, deeming it illegal and erroneous in law. For the first time, the court also established a three-month timeframe for the President to decide on bills reserved by the Governor.
Kerala sought similar directives in its petition. In 2023, the Supreme Court expressed dissatisfaction with the then Kerala Governor, Arif Mohammed Khan, for delaying action on bills passed by the state legislature for two years. Khan is currently the Governor of Bihar.
Last July, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the plea from opposition-led Kerala, which alleged that assent to bills passed by the legislative assembly was being denied. The Kerala government claimed that Khan had referred certain bills to President Droupadi Murmu, which had yet to be approved.
The court took note of the petitions and issued notices to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs and the secretaries of the Kerala Governor. The state argued that the Governor improperly reserved seven bills, which he was expected to handle directly, for the President’s consideration.
It contended that none of these bills pertained to Centre-state relations, stating that they had been pending with the Governor for up to two years, thereby undermining the functioning of the state legislature and rendering it “ineffective and otiose.”
The bills in question included those aimed at public interest, which have been rendered ineffective due to the Governor’s failure to act on them “as soon as possible,” as mandated by the proviso to Article 200.
The Kerala government noted that the home ministry informed them that the President had withheld assent to four of the seven bills: University Laws (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 2021; Kerala Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Bill, 2022; University Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2022; and University Laws (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill, 2022.
The Constitution does not specify the timeframe within which the President must grant assent to a bill passed by a state legislature and referred to the Rashtrapati Bhavan for consideration or for denying consent.
Article 361 states that the President or Governor of a state shall not be answerable to any court for the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of their office or for any acts done in the course of these duties.