The Kerala government, in its petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenged the Governor’s decision to delay or block the bills. The government claimed that the Governor’s refusal to act or referring bills to the President without proper grounds violated constitutional norms.
NEW DELHI: Just after the Supreme Court declared that Tamil Nadu Governor‘s decision to reserve 10 bills for the President was “illegal and arbitrary,” the Kerala government quickly requested the Chief Justice of India (CJI)-led bench to take up its pending case on a similar issue.
Kerala is concerned about delays by its Governor in giving assent to state bills.
The case came up before a two-judge bench led by CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar.
Senior advocate and former Attorney General K K Venugopal, appearing for the Kerala government, urged the court to list the case before the bench led by Justice J B Pardiwala.
Venugopal said, “For the last three years, bills have been pending.”
However, CJI Khanna did not agree to list it before Justice Pardiwala’s bench immediately. Instead, he postponed the hearing, saying that the matter would be tentatively heard on May 13, possibly by another bench.
The court did not clarify whether Justice Pardiwala would hear the case, despite repeated requests from Venugopal.
Advocate Venugopal informed the bench that seven bills were pending with the Kerala Governor and pointed out that the recent Supreme Court verdict on Tamil Nadu covered similar constitutional issues.
CJI Khanna responded by saying, “The judgment has been pronounced today in the morning and we will know about the contents and the directions given in the judgment.”
Kerala had approached the Supreme Court last year, arguing that the Governor was not acting on several bills passed by the Kerala state legislature. These bills were either left pending without explanation or sent to the President for consideration.
Earlier, the Supreme Court had issued a notice to the Central Government and the Additional Chief Secretary to the Kerala Governor. It had also asked them to file detailed responses regarding the issue.
The Kerala government, in its petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenged the Governor’s decision to delay or block the bills. The government claimed that the Governor’s refusal to act or referring bills to the President without proper grounds violated constitutional norms.
K K Venugopal had earlier requested the Supreme Court to lay down clear guidelines about when a Governor can refuse assent to a bill or refer it to the President.
He said, “This is a confusion in the minds of various Governors in the country as to what their powers are in regard to assenting to bills.”
Venugopal continued, “In the present (Kerala) case, out of eight bills, two of them had been kept pending for 23 months. One for 15 months. Another for 13 months. And others for 10 months. It is a very sad state of affairs. This is a confusion among the Governors that they keep bills pending. This is against the constitution.”
He strongly urged the Court to define the legal limits of the Governor’s role, stating, “This court should tell the Governor as to when they can refuse to assent and when they can refer to the President.”
The Kerala government has also challenged the action of President Droupadi Murmu, who withheld assent for four out of seven bills referred by the Governor. Kerala argued that none of these bills dealt with Centre-State matters that would require Presidential assent.
According to the petition, the Governor should not have referred those bills to the President in the first place, as they were within the state’s legislative domain.
Case Title : STATE OF KERALA AND ANR. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. W.P.(C) No. 211/2024
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
