Supreme Court questions Kerala Governor’s inaction on bills over two years

The Supreme Court expressed strong disapproval of Kerala Governor Arif Mohammed Khan’s prolonged inaction on bills passed by the state legislature, spanning two years. The court announced its intention to establish guidelines on when governors can refer bills to the President of India for assent.

Acknowledging the governor’s decisions on eight bills, the court instructed him to meet with Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and the relevant minister to discuss the legislation, emphasizing the need for “political sagacity.”

Also Read: UP: 2 woman keep mother’s lifeless body for over a year, skips cremation; case registered

Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, leading the bench, questioned the governor’s two-year delay, stating, “What was the governor doing for two years by sitting on the bills?” The Attorney General, R Venkataramani, representing the governor’s office, mentioned that seven out of the eight bills were “reserved” for the president, while the governor assented to one.

Despite the Attorney General’s reluctance to delve into details, the court stressed its accountability to the Constitution and the public. The court granted the Kerala government permission to amend its plea, seeking guidelines for timely decision-making by state governors on bills passed by legislatures.

Also Read: Telangana Polls: BJP and Congress challenge KCR’s hat-trick bid

The bench urged the governor to discuss the matter with the Chief Minister and the minister in charge. Chief Justice Chandrachud emphasized the hope for political sagacity, warning that the court is ready to lay down the law if necessary.

Senior advocate K K Venugopal, representing the Kerala government, asserted the need for the apex court to establish guidelines on when bills can be reserved for presidential assent, criticizing the governor for obstructing governance by sitting on bills instead of collaborating with the assembly.

Also Read: Brother of Revanth Reddy halted his entry into the Kamareddy polling booth

Initially considering the possibility of disposing of the state government’s petition, the bench decided to keep it pending, citing the live nature of the issue. The court noted that the governor forwarding the bills to the president satisfied the requirement under Article 200 of the Constitution.

Referring to a previous verdict in Punjab’s case, the court emphasized that state governors should not obstruct the normal course of lawmaking. The Kerala government contended in its petition that the governor’s delay in granting assent to eight bills was detrimental to the people’s rights, affecting public welfare measures. The court acknowledged the significance of the matter, emphasizing its commitment to constitutional duty.