Kerala's case in SC against President Murmu, Governor Arif Mohammed Khan

Increasing the rift between the Governor and the state, the Kerala government has moved the Supreme Court against President Draupadi Murmu's refusal to assent to four out of seven crucial bills referred to her by Governor Arif Mohammed Khan

This move comes in the wake of a long-standing dispute between the state government and the Governor over the delay in approving legislative bills.

In November 2023, Governor Arif Mohammed Khan sent seven bills to President Murmu just a day before the Supreme Court was scheduled to hear the state government's case against him for holding back important bills passed by the legislature.

The Kerala government's petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, contends that the Governor's referral of the bills to the President lacked merit since none of the bills pertained to Centre-state relations.

The state government's argument hinges on the interpretation of Article 200 of the Constitution, which stipulates that the Governor must act on bills presented to them "as soon as possible." Kerala asserts that the prolonged delay of two years in addressing these bills represents a deliberate attempt to shirk constitutional responsibilities.

Moreover, the government contends that the President's withholding of assent for four bills without providing any reasons violates constitutional provisions, including Article 14, 200, and 201.

The bills in question cover a range of significant areas, including amendments to university laws and cooperative societies. Kerala argues that the Governor's actions, coupled with the President's non-action, undermine the welfare legislation enacted by the State Assembly, thus denying the people of Kerala their constitutional rights.

In seeking relief from the Supreme Court, the Kerala government has put forth a series of demands. These include calling for records related to the Governor's reservation of the bills, quashing said reservation, declaring the Governor's actions unconstitutional, and directing the Governor to grant assent to the bills. The petition, spearheaded by Advocate CK Sasi and settled by Senior Advocate KK Venugopal, underscores the gravity of the constitutional crisis at hand.

This legal battle draws parallels with similar disputes in neighbouring states. In Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court questioned a Governor's decision to refer bills to the President after initially withholding assent. Likewise, in Punjab, the Court emphasized that the Governor's powers must align with constitutional provisions, particularly Article 200, and should not impede the normal legislative process.