'Tamil Nadu Case Judgment Covers Us' : Kerala Govt To Supreme Court On Plea Against Governor Referring Bills To President

The Supreme Court today posted to May 13 the petitions filed by the Kerala Government against the State Governor withholding assent on bills and referring some of them to the President.The matter was before a bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar.Senior Advocate KK Venugopal appearing for the State of Kerala insisted that the matter could be argued today itself, referring to the judgment pronounced today in the matter of Tamil Nadu Governor. He stressed the long pendency of the bills, which have not got the Governor's Assent yet for nearly two years. He added that the judgment of Justice Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan setting aside TN Governor's reference of the bills to the President squarely covered the present case also. "For 23 months, several bills have been pending... it's very unfortunate," Venugopal said. Attorney General for India R Venkatramani sought time to examine the judgment in the Tamil Nadu case to ascertain its applicability to Kerala's case.The CJI, referring to the decision by the bench of Justice Pardiwala said: "Let's see if the judgment is there, let the judgment be examined ...if it's covered by the judgment, it will be covered by the judgment."Venugopal then requested that the matter be placed before the bench of Justice JB Pardiwala, considering that the present issue is squarely covered under the Tamil Nadu case. Notably, Venugopal had made this request on an earlier occasion as well. "For three years the bills have been pending, if the matter could go before the Justice Pardiwala bench" CJI replied : "Obviously the judgment has been pronounced today morning (Justice Pardiwala decision on TN Governor). So people will know about the contents and directions given in the judgment"Venugopal re-iterated : "So ideally it should go before J Pardiwala bench, it's squarely covered"The CJI assured that the present matter will be dealt with in time and the bench will pass an order in this regard : "Mr Venugopal, we have given a very short date, and we will pass an order."In the present case, the state of Kerala has challenged the action of President Droupadi Murmu 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 required the Presidential assent.What Is The Challenge About? The bills are 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, 2023, the Governor referred the seven bills to the President. On November 29, 2023, while hearing the petition, the Supreme Court criticised the Governor for sitting over the bills.On February 29, 2024 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. 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 disrupted the federal structure, the State contended.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 was justified.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...

'Tamil Nadu Case Judgment Covers Us' : Kerala Govt To Supreme Court On Plea Against Governor Referring Bills To President

Anmol Kaur Bawa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Anmol Kaur Bawa

'Tamil Nadu Case Judgment Covers Us' : Kerala Govt To Supreme Court On Plea Against Governor Referring Bills To President

Anmol Kaur Bawa

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Anmol Kaur Bawa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers