New Delhi : The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to examine whether a governor can reserve a bill for presidential assent without assigning any reason and after sitting on it for an inordinate period, questioning Kerala governor Arif Mohammed Khan’s move to refer to the President a day ago seven of the eight bills that he was withholding for a period ranging between seven and 26 months.
“What was the governor doing for two years without acting on these bills? We will get into it. There is accountability of governors and there is accountability on us as a constitutional court… Governors cannot sit on a bill to thwart the normal process of law making by state legislatures,” a bench, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, said. We’re now on WhatsApp. Click to join.
The bench, also comprising justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, recorded in its order that there was no justification for Khan to keep the eight bills pending for an “inordinate period” before giving his assent for one of the eight bills and reserving the other seven for presidential assent.
Like similar petitions filed by the governments of Telangana, Punjab and Tamil Nadu against inaction by their respective governors, the bench noted, the Kerala governor also acted only after the state government moved a petition before the top court and notice was issued, seeking explanation from the governor’s office.
Even as it acknowledged a submission made by attorney general (AG) R Venkataramani on behalf of the governor’s office that Khan would invite Kerala CM Pinarayi Vijayan and the minister-in-charge of a particular bill, the court was not satisfied with how the governor has dealt with the matter.
It recorded the contention of senior counsel KK Venugopal, who appeared for the Kerala government, that three of the seven bills referred to the President by Khan were initially promulgated as ordinances by the governor, and that the Constitution required governors to seek approval of the President before such promulgation.
Seeking the court’s guidelines as to when a governor can reserve a bill for presidential assent, Venugopal emphasised that Khan’s promulgation of the three ordinances after the President’s nod made it clear that the bills were neither outside the purview of the state government nor in conflict with any central law.
Acknowledging these submissions, the court permitted the Kerala government to amend its petition so as to press for judicial guidelines on when a bill can be reserved by the governor for presidential assent.
Needs a graf here on what this means — does it widen the scope dramatically, and does it mean there could be some definitive guidelines at last?
The development assumes significance as the court has agreed to consider laying down judicial guidelines on the exercise of constitutional power by governors while reserving bill for presidential ascent. Additionally, the court may also consider if a law which has already been promulgated as an ordinance can still be withheld by governors awaiting presidential nod.
While the AG opposed expansion of the scope of the petition moved by the state government, which had initially complained only against the stalemate over eight bills, the court was emphatic that it has a “live issue” before it and therefore it does not need to ask the state to come back with a fresh petition seeking expansive guidelines.
During the hearing, the bench also remarked that it may not need to go into such issues if both the governor and the chief minister act with sagacity. “Let’s hope political sagacity takes over,” it added.
Venugopal called the AG’s suggestion that the Kerala CM should agree to meet the governor to discuss the pending bills a “face-saving” measure, alleging that Khan was acting as an adversary of the elected government in the state at the cost of several proposed laws meant for the welfare of the people.
The bench, however, told Venugopal that the CM should agree to meet the governor at the latter’s invitation and that political scores can be settled otherwise. Venugopal acceded to the court’s views, saying the CM would go with the minister concerned to meet the governor.
Last week, the Supreme Court had asked the governor to go through its verdict in a similar case filed by the Punjab government, mapping out the powers and corresponding duties of governors with regard to the bills sent for their assent by state legislatures. The judgment held that governors cannot keep bills pending indefinitely and that they must give their assent if the legislature readopts the bills despite their objections.
On Tuesday, Khan cleared the Kerala Public Health bill while reserving seven others. The bills reserved for presidential assent were two University Amendment Bills, the Kerala Lokayukta Bill, two University Laws (Amendment) bills, the Kerala Cooperative Societies (Amendment) Bill, and a bill regarding the expansion of the University Search Committee.
The court’s judgment in the Punjab case held that governors “cannot be at liberty to keep bills pending indefinitely”, emphasising that the exercise of unbridled discretion in areas not entrusted to the discretion of the governor risks walking roughshod over the working of a democratically elected government in the state.
That verdict came at a time when Raj Bhavans in several states have been locked in confrontation with the elected governments. On November 20, the court expressed its displeasure at the delay on the part of the governors in giving assent to bills passed by state assemblies, as it took up the related petitions moved separately by Kerala and Tamil Nadu governments and asked for responses of their respective governors. The petition moved by the Tamil Nadu government is expected to come up for hearing on December 1.
