SC notice to Centre, Kerala governor on state govt's plea accusing Raj Bhavan of not granting assent to 8 bills

The Kerala government claimed the Governor appears to be of the view that granting assent or otherwise dealing with Bills is a matter entrusted to him in his absolute discretion, to decide whenever he pleases.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to the Centre and the Kerala Governor's Principal Secretary on a plea filed by the state government questioning indefinite delay in granting assent to the Bills passed by the Legislative Assembly.

A bench of Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra sought a response from the Union government and the Governor's office, and fixed the matter for hearing on Friday.

After hearing senior advocate K K Venugopal on behalf of the Kerala government, the court asked Attorney General R Venkatramani or Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to assist in the matter.

Venugopal said of eight bills, some are pending for seven months and some others for three years.

He said the Governors do not realise that they are part of legislators.

Kerala is the third state after Punjab and Tamil Nadu to file a writ petition.

The court decided to examine the matter as it did in case of other states.

In its plea, the state government sought a declaration that the actions of the Governor in withholding Bills indefinitely without exercising discretionary power under Article 200 of the Constitution are "contumacious, arbitrary, despotic and antithetical to the democratic values, ideals of the Cabinet form of Government, and principles of democratic Constitutionalism and federalism".

It stated that as many as eight Bills passed by the State Legislature and presented to the Governor for his assent under Article 200 of the Constitution were pending. Of these, three Bills have remained pending for more than two years, and three more in excess of a full year. 

"The conduct of the Governor threatens to defeat and subvert the very fundamentals and basic foundations of our Constitution, including the rule of law and democratic good governance, apart from defeating the rights of the people of the State to the welfare measures sought to be implemented through the Bills," it said. 

It claimed the Governor appears to be of the view that granting assent or otherwise dealing with Bills is a matter entrusted to him in his absolute discretion, to decide whenever he pleases. "This is a complete subversion of the Constitution," it said. 

The plea said the words in Article 200 “as soon as possible” necessarily mean that not only should pending bills be disposed of within a reasonable time, but further that these Bills have to be dealt with urgently and expeditiously without any avoidable delay. 

It contended the urgency should normally mean a few weeks and nothing more, as many of the Bills involve immense public interest and provide for welfare measures which would stand deprived and denied to the people of the State to the extent of the delay.

"The conduct of the Governor in keeping Bills pending for long and indefinite periods of time is also manifestly arbitrary and violates Article 14 of the Constitution. Additionally, it also defeats the rights of the people of the State of Kerala under Article 21 of the Constitution, by denying them the benefits of welfare legislation," it said.

The state government also pointed out a five-judge Constitution bench in case of 'Purushothaman Nambudiri vs State of Kerala' (1962) has taken the view that Article 200 of the Constitution does not provide “for a time limit within which the Governor….. should come to a decision on the Bill referred to him for his assent”. 

It said in the event the said judgment is read as applying to the case at hand, the matter may have to be referred to a larger bench of seven judges to reconsider the said judgment and to rule on the interpretation and impact of the phrase “as soon as possible” occurring in the first proviso to Article 200.

It also said if the Governor acts ultra vires the Constitution, and outside the Constitution, the immunity under Article 361 of the Constitution from being answerable to any Court would have no application.