• The Supreme Court has agreed to consider the separate pleas of Kerala and West Bengal, alleging the denial of assent to Bills passed by the respective Legislative Assemblies.

• Kerala also alleged that Governor Arif Mohammed Khan referred certain Bills to President Droupadi Murmu and those were yet to be cleared.

• Taking note of the pleas, the Supreme Court issued notices to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs and the secretaries of Kerala Governor Khan and his West Bengal counterpart C.V. Ananda Bose and sought their replies within three weeks.

• The CPI(M)-led Left Democratic Front government of Kerala moved the apex court in March, alleging that certain Bills cleared by the Legislative Assembly were referred to the President by the Governor and these were still pending assent. 

• West Bengal, in its plea, alleged the Governor was withholding assent on eight Bills. 

• The Constitution is silent on how much time the President can take in granting assent to a Bill passed by a state legislature and referred to the Rashtrapati Bhavan for presidential consideration or for denying consent.

• Article 361 of the Constitution says the President, or the Governor of a state, shall not be answerable to any court for the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of his office or for any act done or purporting to be done by him in the exercise and performance of those powers and duties.

Arguments of Kerala

• Delay in Action: Kerala argued that the Governor delayed action on Bills for two years before referring seven of them to the President. This delay denied the people of Kerala the benefits of the welfare legislation.

• Role of the President: The state highlighted that the President, who acts solely on the advice of the Centre, withheld consent for four of the seven Bills. None of these Bills deal with Centre-State relations, indicating unnecessary interference by the Centre in State matters.

• Limited Power of Governor: Kerala contended that the Governor’s power to reserve a Bill for the President’s consideration is limited and should be confined to specific circumstances as detailed in the proviso to Article 213 of the Constitution.

• Constitutional Balance: The state argued that the Governor’s actions disrupted the delicate balance envisaged by the Constitution between the State’s executive, which drafts and introduces Bills, and the state legislature, which passes them. By referring the Bills to the President, the Governor rendered the functioning of these elected bodies ineffective and otiose.

• Federal Structure: Kerala emphasized that the Governor’s actions subverted the federal structure of the Constitution by involving the Centre in issues exclusively within the state’s legislative domain. This undermined the state’s autonomy and legislative authority.

• Violation of Constitutional Provisions: The state argued that the Centre’s withholding of assent without any reasons was a highly arbitrary action, violating Article 14 (right to equality) and Articles 200 and 201 (procedures for granting and considering assent to Bills) of the Constitution.

• Request for Judicial Clarification: Kerala sought the Supreme Court’s intervention to clarify when Governors can refer Bills to the President to prevent such delays and ensure effective governance. They argued that the reference to the President should not be used as an escape route to avoid taking decisions on state legislation.

Governor’s role in approving a Bill

• According to Article 168, the legislature of a state shall consist of the governor and the Legislative Assembly.

• He/she cannot be a member of either House of that Legislature. 

• In order to become an Act, every Bill passed by the state legislature must receive his/her assent or, having been reserved by him for President’s consideration, receive the assent of the President. 

• If the Governor or the President, as the case may be, withholds his/her assent, the Bill fails to become law.

Article 200 provides that when a Bill passed by the state legislature, is presented to the Governor, the Governor may take any of the following steps:

a) He/she assents to the Bill, or

b) He/she withholds assent therefrom, or

c) He/she reserves the Bill for the President’s consideration, or

d) The Governor may, as soon as possible, return the Bill (other than a Money Bill) with a message for reconsideration by the state legislature. But, if the Bill is again passed by the legislature with or without amendment, the governor shall not withhold assent therefrom (First Proviso).

e) If in the opinion of the Governor, the Bill, if it became law, would so derogate from the powers of the High Court as to endanger its constitutional position, he shall not assent to but shall reserve it for the consideration of the President (Second Proviso).

• If the Governor reserves a Bill for President’s consideration, the enactment of the Bill then depends on the assent or refusal of assent by the President.

• In the case of a reserved Bill, the President shall, under Article 201, either declare his assent or withhold his assent thereto. Instead of following either of these courses, the President may (if the Bill is not a Money Bill) direct the Governor to return the Bill together with a message to the state legislature for reconsideration. The state legislature shall then reconsider the Bill within six months of its receipt and, if it is again passed, it shall be presented again to the President for his consideration. In contrast with the power of the Governor regarding a reconsidered Bill, it is not obligatory for the President to give his assent to a reconsidered Bill.

(The author is a trainer for Civil Services aspirants.)