 |
|
The Supreme Court has once again deferred the hearing on the Kerala government's petition concerning the delay in granting assent to bills passed by the state assembly by the former Governor, Arif Mohammed Khan, now serving as the Governor of Bihar. The case, which raises significant constitutional questions about the powers and responsibilities of Governors in India, will now be heard on July 25th. The initial petition was filed by the Kerala government last year, alleging that then Governor Khan had unduly delayed the assent process for several bills, some for nearly two years, effectively undermining the authority of the state legislature. The Kerala government’s primary contention is that the Governor had reserved seven bills for the President’s consideration without justifiable reason, thereby hindering the state's legislative functioning. The state asserted that none of the bills involved matters directly affecting Centre-State relations, and therefore, the Governor was constitutionally obligated to act independently and expeditiously under Article 200 of the Constitution. The bills in question included important legislation such as the University Laws (Amendment) Bills of 2021 and 2022, and the Kerala Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Bill, 2022. The Union Home Ministry subsequently informed the state that the President had withheld assent to four of the seven bills, further exacerbating the situation and underscoring the complex interplay between the state government, the Governor, and the President in the legislative process. The deferral comes at a critical juncture, particularly in light of the Supreme Court's recent verdict in the Tamil Nadu Governor case, which dealt with similar issues of gubernatorial delays in bill assent. Senior Advocate K.K. Venugopal, representing the Kerala government, initially sought to withdraw the petition, arguing that the Tamil Nadu case had already addressed the core concerns and established clear timelines for gubernatorial action on bills. However, this attempt was met with strong opposition from Attorney General R. Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who urged the court to await its decision on the pending Presidential reference under Article 143 of the Constitution concerning the grant of assent to state bills. Mehta further suggested that Kerala's case could be combined with the Presidential reference, indicating a desire for a comprehensive resolution that would set a precedent for all similar situations across the country. Venugopal, visibly frustrated by the opposition to the withdrawal, described it as “strange,” implying that the continued litigation would only serve to benefit both parties financially. The bench, however, clarified that there should be no objection to withdrawal “tentatively” and proceeded to fix the next hearing for July 25, leaving the door open for further arguments and potentially a combined consideration with the Presidential reference.
The constitutional implications of this case are profound. Article 200 of the Indian Constitution outlines the powers of the Governor with respect to bills passed by the state legislature. It stipulates that the Governor may either give assent to the bill, withhold assent, or reserve the bill for the consideration of the President. However, the Constitution does not explicitly prescribe a timeframe within which the Governor must act, leading to ambiguities and potential for delays, as evidenced in the Kerala case. The Kerala government’s argument centers on the principle of constitutional federalism, emphasizing that the Governor, as the constitutional head of the state, is bound to act in a manner that upholds the democratic law-making processes and does not unduly impede the functioning of the state legislature. The state contends that the prolonged delay in granting assent to the bills effectively rendered the state legislature “ineffective and otiose,” thereby undermining the very foundations of representative democracy. The Supreme Court's earlier observation that it would examine whether the ruling in the Tamil Nadu Governor case applies to the Kerala matter highlights the significance of the Tamil Nadu verdict in shaping the jurisprudence on gubernatorial powers. The Tamil Nadu case had struck down the re-reservation of 10 bills to the President and prescribed a three-month timeframe for presidential decisions, setting a precedent that could potentially influence the outcome of the Kerala case. The critical question is whether the Supreme Court will extend the principles established in the Tamil Nadu case to apply to situations where the Governor initially reserves bills for the President's consideration without a clear justification. The Attorney General and Solicitor General’s opposition to the withdrawal of the petition, coupled with their suggestion to club the case with the Presidential reference, underscores the Union government's interest in addressing the broader constitutional issues surrounding the Governor's powers and the Centre-State relations. The Presidential reference under Article 143 allows the President to seek the Supreme Court's advisory opinion on questions of law or fact of public importance, providing a mechanism for resolving constitutional ambiguities and setting legal precedents. By seeking to combine the Kerala case with the Presidential reference, the Union government aims to obtain a comprehensive interpretation of Article 200 and related provisions, which could have far-reaching implications for the functioning of state governments across the country.
The University Laws (Amendment) Bills of 2021 and 2022, and the Kerala Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Bill, 2022, which are at the heart of this dispute, reflect the state government's legislative priorities and its attempts to address pressing issues within the state. The delay in granting assent to these bills has undoubtedly hampered the state's ability to implement its policy objectives and address the needs of its citizens. The Kerala government’s plea before the Supreme Court is not merely a legal challenge but also a reflection of the broader tensions that often exist between state governments and Governors, particularly in situations where the Governor is perceived to be acting in a manner that is not aligned with the interests of the state. The role of the Governor as the constitutional head of the state requires a delicate balance between upholding the Constitution and respecting the autonomy of the state legislature. The Governor is expected to act as a bridge between the Union government and the state government, ensuring that the state’s interests are adequately represented while also adhering to the principles of constitutional governance. However, the ambiguity surrounding the Governor's discretionary powers, particularly in the context of granting assent to bills, has often led to conflicts and legal challenges, as demonstrated by the Kerala case. The Supreme Court’s forthcoming decision in this matter is keenly awaited, as it could provide much-needed clarity on the scope of the Governor's powers and the timelines for granting assent to bills. The court's interpretation of Article 200 and related provisions could have a significant impact on the functioning of state legislatures and the overall balance of power between the Union government and the state governments. The decision could also set a precedent for future cases involving similar disputes, ensuring that the constitutional framework is upheld and that the democratic law-making processes are not unduly impeded by executive delays. The apex court's judgment will inevitably shape the future of Centre-State relations and the constitutional functioning of State Governors, contributing to a more robust and accountable democratic system.
Source: SC Defers Kerala Govt’s Plea Against Governor’s Delay in Bill Assent to July 25