The Supreme Court on Tuesday said it would examine whether the recent judgement on a plea of Tamil Nadu, fixing timelines for the grant of assent to bills, covered the issues raised by the Kerala government in its pleas.
A bench comprising Justices P S Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi agreed to hear on May 6 the pleas of the Kerala government against Governor over the delay in approving bills passed by the state assembly.
“We will look into that judgement and see whether issues raised here are covered,” the bench said when Attorney General R Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre and the Governor’s office, said the recent judgement delivered by a bench headed by Justice J B Pardiwala did not cover the issues raised by the Kerala government.
A bench comprising Justices Pardiwala and R Mahadevan on April 8 delivered a significant verdict on the plea of Tamil Nadu and set aside the reservation of the 10 bills for President’s consideration in the second round holding it as illegal, erroneous in law.
The bench, for the first time, also prescribed that President should decide on the bills reserved for her consideration by Governor within a period of three months from the date on which such reference is received.
Kerala seeks similar directions in its case.
On Tuesday, senior advocate K K Venugopal, appearing for Kerala, said the pleas of the state were covered by the recent judgement.
“What is the timeline for making a reference to the President by the Governor and this issue is dealt with by that judgement and there are no other questions,” he said.
He urged the bench to allow the pleas of the Kerala government in terms of the Tamil Nadu judgement.
Mehta, however, insisted on making submissions saying the case of Kerala was not covered by the Tamil Nadu judgement.
“The (Tamil Nadu) judgment does not cover certain issues in this case on facts which are essentially different,” the bench said and fixed the pleas for hearing on May 6.
The bench asked Venugopal to mention the third and subsequent plea of the state government, challenging the withholding of assent by President, before the CJI so that it can also be referred to it.
Venugopal said the Chief Justice of India directed listing of the petition on May 13.
The bench said a mention had to be made before the CJI for tagging the other petition with the present one.
In 2023, the top court expressed displeasure over the then Kerala Governor Arif Mohammed Khan “sitting” for two years on bills passed by the state legislature.
Khan is currently Governor of Bihar.
The top court, on July 26, last year, agreed to consider the plea of opposition-ruled Kerala alleging the denial of assent to bills passed by the legislative assembly.
The Kerala government alleged that Khan referred certain bills to President Droupadi Murmu and those were yet to be cleared.
Taking note of the pleas, the top court issued notices to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs and the secretaries of the Kerala Governor.
Venugopal said, “This is the most unfortunate situation.” The state said its plea related to the acts of Governor in reserving seven bills, which he was required to deal with himself, to President.
Not one of the seven bills had anything to do with Centre-state relations, it argued.
The bills were pending with Governor for as long as two years and his action “subverted” the functioning of the state legislature, rendering its very existence “ineffective and otiose”, the state added.
“The bills include public interest bills that are for the public good, and even these have been rendered ineffective by the Governor not dealing with each one of them ‘as soon as possible’, as required by the proviso to Article 200,” the plea said.
The state government said on February 23 and 29, the home ministry informed it that President had withheld assent to four of the seven bills — University Laws (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 2021; Kerala Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Bill, 2022; University Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2022; and University Laws (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill, 2022.
The Constitution is silent on how much time 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 President, or 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.
The article provides for the process for a bill passed by the assembly of a state to be presented to Governor for assent who may either assent or withhold assent or reserve the bill for consideration by the President.
“When a bill has been passed by the legislative assembly of a state or, in the case of a state having a legislative council, has been passed by both Houses of the legislature of the state, it shall be presented to the governor and the governor shall declare either that he assents to the bill or that he withholds assent therefrom or that he reserves the bill for the consideration of the president,” Article 200 says. (Agencies)
