What prompted Kerala Government to appeal against President in Supreme Court?

The Left Democratic Front (LDF) ruling in Kerala has urged the Supreme Court to consider the referral of these bills to the President as 'unconstitutional' and lacking in good faith.

Author
Satyam Singh
Follow us:
Courtesy: Canva

The Kerala government has appealed in Supreme Court against the delay in the President's approval of several bills passed by the state legislature. The dispute revolves around four bills held back by the President without explanation and seven others left pending by the state governor for up to two years before being sent to the President. The state government deems these actions as 'manifestly arbitrary.'

Legal challagne to President's incation

The Left Democratic Front (LDF) ruling in Kerala has urged the Supreme Court to consider the referral of these bills to the President as 'unconstitutional' and lacking in good faith. They argue that the President's inaction, which reflects the advice of the Council of Ministers, violates constitutional articles 14, 200, and 201 due to the absence of reasons for withholding assent.

The state contends that the governor's delay in handling the bills has disrupted the legislative process and reduced the legislature's effectiveness, especially concerning bills aimed at public welfare. This inaction is seen as a direct violation of the constitutional requirement to address such matters 'as soon as possible,' as stated in Article 200.

Adding to the complexity, the governor's public criticisms of the state government and the Chief Minister have raised suspicions about the motives behind the delayed bill referrals to the President. The state government argues that this delay demonstrates a serious disregard for the governor's constitutional duties and responsibilities.

President withheld four bills

The Supreme Court's involvement led to the governor eventually approving one of the bills, while the remaining seven were referred to the President. Subsequently, the President withheld assent to four of these bills. The state government criticizes the governor's failure to disclose the extended delays in his referrals to the President, suggesting that earlier action might have prompted timelier responses.

The state seeks a Supreme Court declaration that the seven bills should revert to the governor for resolution in line with constitutional and legal norms, advocating for a reconsideration based on constitutional morality.