In an unprecedented move, the Kerala Government on March 23 filed an appeal in the Supreme Court as President Droupadi Murmu has withheld assent for four Bills passed by the Kerala Legislature without disclosing any reasons. It has also moved the Court against Kerala Governor Arif Mohammed Khan’s office for keeping the Bills pending for a long and indefinite period, and later reserving them for the consideration of the President.
The act of the President in withholding the assent for the four Bills without giving any reason was highly arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14, 200 and 201 of the Constitution. The reference of the seven Bills to the President has to be recalled on the grounds of Constitutional morality, the State has argued.
Also Read | What was Kerala Governor doing for 2 years on Bills, asks Supreme Court
The State has listed the Secretary to the President, the Kerala Governor and the Additional Chief Secretary to the Governor as respondents in the writ petition filed before the Supreme Court.
Kerala would be represented in the top court by a senior lawyer, specialising in Constitutional matters and C.K. Sasi, its Standing Counsel.
The State contends that the actions of the Union Government in advising the President to withhold assent to Bills passed by the Legislative Assembly 11 to 24 months back, which were wholly within the domain of the State Government, subverted and disrupted the federal structure of the Constitution. It was also a grave encroachment into the domain entrusted to the State under the Constitution, it argued.
The reasons assigned by the Governor for reserving the Bills for the consideration of the President had nothing to do with the Union of India or the relationship between the Legislature of Kerala and the Union of India. The actions of the Governor subverted the delicate balance envisaged by the Constitution between the three organs of State, by rendering the functioning of the elected executive, which drafted and introduced the Bills, and then the State Legislature, which passed the Bills, wholly ineffective and otiose. His actions also subverted the federal structure of the Constitution, by reserving Bills, which are wholly within the domain of the State under the Constitution, for the President, it contends.
The Governor, who reserved the seven Bills, avoided a decision from the Supreme Court by bundling up seven of the eight pending Bills and referring them to the President. The actions of the Governor lacked bona fides and were not in good faith. The reservation of the Bills by the Governor after keeping them pending for up to 24 months was a deliberate attempt to avoid carrying out his constitutional duty and functions under Article 200 of the Constitution. Hence the reference of the Bills to the President has to be held to be unconstitutional, the State would argue.
