In an unprecedented move, the Kerala government has petitioned the Supreme Court against President Droupadi Murmu for withholding assent to four of the seven bills referred to her by the Governor. The Left Democratic Front (LDF) government led by the CPI(M) has named the Union government, the Secretary to the President of India, Kerala Governor Arif Mohammad Khan, and his additional secretary as parties to the case.
According to the plea, the Governor had been holding onto these bills for approximately two years and his actions were described as undermining the operations of the state legislature, making its existence pointless and ineffective. “The bills include public interest bills which 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.
Also Read
“The actions of the Union Government, in advising the President of India to withhold assent to Bills which had been passed by the state legislative assembly as long as 11-24 months back, and which were wholly within the domain of the state government, subverts and disrupts the federal structure of the Constitution of India, and is a grave encroachment into the domain entrusted to the state under the Constitution,” it said. The petitioner appealed to the court to rule that it is unconstitutional for the President to withhold assent to bills passed by the state legislature without providing a reason.
It is pertinent to note that the Constitution does not specify a time limit for the President to grant assent to bills referred for consideration, or to refuse consent. Moreover, Article 361 of the Constitution says: “The President, or the Governor or Rajpramukh 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.”
However, the larger question here is why Governors appointed by the current dispensation at the Centre have frequent confrontations with state governments, especially those ruled by Opposition parties, by overstepping their powers. Till a few years ago, we saw this gubernatorial overreach in West Bengal, and now we are witnessing this trend in Punjab and the two southern states of Kerala and Tamil Nadu. Only recently the Supreme Court had come down heavily on Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi for refusing to re-induct DMK leader K Ponmudi into the state Cabinet even after the latter’s conviction in a criminal case was stayed by the top court. A bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra pulled up the Governor saying he was “defying the Supreme Court of India” by his actions. In December 2023, the top court had raised concerns about the prolonged delay by Ravi in approving bills submitted for his assent since January 2020. It questioned why Governors should wait for parties to bring their grievances to the top court.
The Governors, acting as agents of the Centre, is yet another assault on Indian democracy’s federal structure which is already in strain under the present set up. India is a Union of States and not respecting the states’ autonomy is a grave threat to the very existence of a democratic environment. Such actions or rather inactions bring disrepute to the posts of Governors and the President. It does not matter what the Supreme Court rules in this matter concerning the President. The very fact that a State Government has appealed against the President of the Union itself is highly damaging for the highest post of this country. This present President has been slighted in many prominent instances by the Union Government and thereby hampering the image of that post. An example is the inauguration of the new Parliament building where the President, as the custodian of the Constitution, was not even invited. In the Kerala appeal, if the SC gives any verdict that may seem tilting favourably towards the State then again the President’s seat will stand compromised. If, on the other hand, the SC does not touch the matter or refrains from dragging the President then it is the Supreme Court that will lose credibility in the eyes of the citizen. The damage that ensues because of politicising and demeaning such exalted seats of power results in a breakdown of respect and regards for those posts. Many aspects of governance, especially in a country like India with a long history of feudalism, depend on perceived powers that have the ability to punish or spare. Responses to every little action or inaction cannot be traced down to the Constitution. In earlier times, it was the King’s mood at the time of deciding an issue that sealed the fates of many. In a seemingly democratic society as is being posed currently, it is important to retain and strengthen the image of justice being meted out in a non partisan manner. Regular assaults on and resultant diminishing of authority that should be viewed as fair and equitable will only destroy the capacity of the governance system for the detriment of all.
