Context

Recently, the Kerala government has moved the Supreme Court against the President for withholding assent to bills passed by the state legislature without disclosing any reasons.

Kerala Government Moves SC Against President for Withholding Assent to State Bills

• Concerns also raised by the Kerala Government against the Governor:  As the Governor keeping the bills for a long and indefinite period & later reserving them for the consideration of the president.
• 4 Bills are withheld  to assent: 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.
• Respondents in the Pleas: 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.
• Recent Development: In 2023, Kerala government had moved the Supreme court against the Governor, highlighting the delay in clearing bills which were passed by the Assembly.
• • In that case, The Supreme court had given its verdict as per a similar case filed by the Punjab government, in which the supreme court held that the “Governor could not thwart the normal course of law making”.

What are the Contentions Cited by The Kerala Government?

• State’s Argument Regarding Federal Structure: The state contends that the union government’s action, advising the President to withhold assent to bills passed by the state legislative assembly 11 to 24 months ago, which falls within the jurisdiction of the state government, undermines and disrupts the federal structure of the constitution. 
• Encroachment on State’s Constitutional Domain: This action represents encroachment into the domain specifically allocated to the state under the constitution, as asserted by the state. 
• Constitutional Violation by the President’s Act: The state further argues that the President’s act of withholding assent for the four bills without providing any reasoning was highly arbitrary and in direct violation of Articles 14, 200, and 201 of the Constitution. 
• Questioning the Governor’s Actions: The state questions the bona fides of the Governor’s actions, suggesting they were not carried out in good faith. Hence, the state argues that the referral of the bills to the President must be deemed unconstitutional.

Significance of Kerala Government’s Move 

• Opens Up Avenues for Judicial Review in the Decision of President: The Kerala Government’s unconventional action will stimulate a constitutional discourse on the extent of judicial review over the President of India’s decisions.
• Contentions Against Governor’s Referral: The Governor should not have referred the Bills to the President, as their subject matters were within the State List of the Constitution, where the State holds legislative powers. None of the Bills conflicted with any Central legislation.

State Bills and the Power of the Governor

• Ordinary Bills: Article 200 of the Indian Constitution includes the process for a state bill to be presented to the Governor for assent. 
• He may: 
  • Give his assent to the bill; the bill then becomes an act. 
  • Withhold his assent to the bill, the bill then ends and does not become an act. 
  • Return the bill for reconsideration of the House or Houses. 
  • Reserve the bill for the consideration of the President. 
• If the bill is passed by the House or Houses again with or without amendments and presented to the governor for his assent, the governor must give his assent to the bill. Thus, the Governor enjoys only a ‘suspensive veto’.  He may reserve the bill for the consideration of the President.

President Assent to State Bill

When an ordinary bill is reserved by the governor for the consideration of the President

• President has three alternatives: 
  • He may give his assent to the bill; the bill then becomes an act. 
  • He may withhold his assent to the bill, the bill then ends and does not become an Act. 
  • He may return the bill to the Governor for the  reconsideration of the House or Houses of the state legislature. 
    • If the bill is passed by the House or Houses again with or without amendments and presented to the President for his assent, the President is not bound to give his assent to the bill. 
    • He may give his assent to such a bill or withhold his assent.

When a Money Bill is reserved by the Governor for the consideration of the President

• President has two alternatives: 
• • He may give his assent to the bill, the bill then becomes an Act. 
  • He may withhold his assent to the bill, the bill then ends and does not become an act. Thus, the President cannot return a money bill for the reconsideration of the state legislature (as in the case of the Parliament).

Conditions for the Reserving the Bills for President Assent by the Governor

• According to the Constitution, in one case such reservation is obligatory, 
  • where the bill passed by the state legislature endangers the position of the state High Court. 
• The Governor can also reserve the bill if it is of the following nature: 
  • Ultra-vires, that is, against the provisions of the Constitution.
  • Opposed to the Directive Principles of State Policy. 
  • Against the larger interest of the country. 
  • Of grave national importance. 
  • Dealing with compulsory acquisition of property under Article 31A of the Constitution.