Kerala Govt Moves Supreme Court Against President Withholding Assent For 4 Bills, Terms It Arbitrary

The State of Kerala has approached the Supreme Court challenging the action of the President of India in withholding assent for four out of the seven bills referred by the Kerala Governor.

In its writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, the State also challenged the Governor's action of referring the bills to the President, arguing that none of the bills related to Centre-State relations to require the Presidential assent. 

The bills related to amendments to laws concerning State Universities and Cooperative Societies . The State pointed out that the Governor had kept these bills pending for several months, ranging from 7 months to 24 months from the date when the bills were passed by the Assembly. Previously, the State filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court challenging the Governor's inaction. After the Supreme Court issued notice on the petition on November 20, the Governor referred the seven bills to the President. On November 29, while hearing the petition, the Supreme Court criticised the Governor for sitting over the bills.

On February 29, the President withheld assent from four bills and approved three other bills. Presidential assent was withheld for the following bills. 1) University Laws (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 2021, 2) the Kerala Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Bill, 2022, 3) the University Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2022 , and 4) the University Laws (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill, 2022 .

The State of Kerala argued that no reasoning has been given for such a rejection.

"It has to be pointed out that the President, which would effectively mean the Council of Ministers, aiding and advising the President, has not given any reason whatsoever for withholding assent for four out of the seven Bills reserved by the Governor. This is a highly arbitrary action, violating Article 14 of the Constitution, as well as Article 200 and 201 thereof," the State said in the writ petition.

The actions of the Union Government in advising the President of India to withhold the assent to bills which had been passed by the State Legislature as long as 11-24 months back, and which were wholly within the domain of the State Government, subverts and disrupts the federal structure, the State contended.

The State's petition was settled by Senior Advocate and former Attorney General KK Venugopal and filed by Advocate CK Sasi.

Governor has no unfettered power to refer bills to the President

The State argued that the Governor, after keeping the bills pending for several months extending up to 2 years referred the bills to the President to evade his Constitutional duty of taking decision on the bills "as soon as possible" as stipulated by Article 200 of the Constitution.

The reasons given by the Governor for reserving the bills for the President have nothing to do with the Union of India or the relationship between the State Legislature or the Union. In this regard, reference is made to the proviso to Article 213 of the Constitution, which sets out the occasions when the assent of the President is necessary for promulgating an Ordinance. The State argued that only on the existence of these factors that a reference to the President is justified.

"It is therefore obvious that the reservation by the Governor to the President after keeping the Bills pending for a period of 11-24 months is 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, as if it does not exist. On this ground alone, the reference to the President of India by the Governor on 28.11.2023 date has to be held to be unconstitutional and lacking in good faith and not bona fide. Therefore, the reference of each of the 7 Bills to the President has to now be recalled, inter alia on the ground of constitutional morality. "

The State seeks the following reliefs :

(a) Calling for the records leading to the File Notes of the Governor for the State of Kerala with regard to reservation of 4 bills for consideration of the President and quash the same;

(b) Declare that the act of the Governor for the State of Kerala reserving 4 bills viz for consideration of the President, as unconstitutional;

(c) Calling for the records leading to the withholding of assent by the President to four bills and quash the same;

(d) Declare that withholding of assent by the President to 4 Bills without stating any reason whatsoever, as unconstitutional; and

(e) Direct the Governor of the State of Kerala to grant assent to the six bills viz. 1) University Laws (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 2021 - Bill No. 50, 2) University Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2021 – Bill No. 54, 3) the Kerala Co-operative Societies Amendment Bill, 2022 - Bill No. 110, 4) the University Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2022 - Bill No. 132, 5) The University Laws (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 2022 - Bill No. 149, and 6) The University Laws (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill, 2022 - Bill No. 150 forthwith; and

(f) Declare that the act of the Governor of Kerala in reserving the seven bills viz. 1) University Laws (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 2021 - Bill No. 50, 2) University Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2021 – Bill No. 54, 3) the Kerala Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Bill, 2022 - Bill No. 110, 4) the University Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2022 - Bill No. 132, 5) Kerala Lok Ayukta (Amendment) Bill, 2022 – Bill No.133, 6) The University Laws (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 2022 - Bill No. 149, and 7) The University Laws (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill, 2022 - Bill No. 150 for the consideration of the President was illegal and lacks in bona fides.