<p class="bodytext">The Kerala government has taken an unprecedented step by approaching the Supreme Court with a petition demanding that the court declare as unconstitutional the action of the President of India in withholding assent to four bills passed by the Kerala Assembly. The petition is part of the continuing litigation over the Governor’s refusal to give assent to bills passed by the legislature. The state government has said that the President has withheld her assent to the bills without assigning reasons. They pertain to state universities and cooperative societies and so fall in the state’s domain of law-making. Kerala Governor Arif Mohammad Khan had kept the decision on the bills pending for as long as two years and then referred them to the President when the government moved the Supreme Court. </p>.<p class="bodytext">The state has contended that the actions of the Governor and the President are in violation of Articles 14, 200 and 201 of the Constitution. The Constitution does not specify a time limit for the Governor or the President to give assent to bills. But it is clear that the Governor had kept the bill with him for an unreasonably long period without good reason. They were sent to the President only to avoid a direction from the Supreme Court. The President refused assent to the bills on the basis of the advice of the Union cabinet. It was also said that it is an encroachment into the state’s domain and a violation of the federal spirit and structure of governance in the country. It is unfortunate that the President has invited charges of partisan and unconstitutional action with her refusal to give assent to the bills. The President is bound to act on the advice of the Union cabinet but it is not known whether she explored her options before acting on a wrong advice. The state government also wants the court to strike down the reference of the bills to the President by the Governor.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The President is the constitutional head of the country and should be above the political fray. It would be embarrassing if the court were to criticise the President’s action in this respect. Confrontations between Governors and governments ruled by opposition parties have become common and the Supreme Court has had to step in frequently. Last week, the court forced Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi to swear in K Ponmudi as a minister. Governors in Opposition-ruled states have become obstructionist in many matters, claiming powers that they do not have, and have conducted themselves like politicians. They are doing serious damage to the Constitution and the polity. The Kerala Governor and the central government have done a disservice to the Constitution by involving the President also in their political plans.</p>
<p class="bodytext">The Kerala government has taken an unprecedented step by approaching the Supreme Court with a petition demanding that the court declare as unconstitutional the action of the President of India in withholding assent to four bills passed by the Kerala Assembly. The petition is part of the continuing litigation over the Governor’s refusal to give assent to bills passed by the legislature. The state government has said that the President has withheld her assent to the bills without assigning reasons. They pertain to state universities and cooperative societies and so fall in the state’s domain of law-making. Kerala Governor Arif Mohammad Khan had kept the decision on the bills pending for as long as two years and then referred them to the President when the government moved the Supreme Court. </p>.<p class="bodytext">The state has contended that the actions of the Governor and the President are in violation of Articles 14, 200 and 201 of the Constitution. The Constitution does not specify a time limit for the Governor or the President to give assent to bills. But it is clear that the Governor had kept the bill with him for an unreasonably long period without good reason. They were sent to the President only to avoid a direction from the Supreme Court. The President refused assent to the bills on the basis of the advice of the Union cabinet. It was also said that it is an encroachment into the state’s domain and a violation of the federal spirit and structure of governance in the country. It is unfortunate that the President has invited charges of partisan and unconstitutional action with her refusal to give assent to the bills. The President is bound to act on the advice of the Union cabinet but it is not known whether she explored her options before acting on a wrong advice. The state government also wants the court to strike down the reference of the bills to the President by the Governor.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The President is the constitutional head of the country and should be above the political fray. It would be embarrassing if the court were to criticise the President’s action in this respect. Confrontations between Governors and governments ruled by opposition parties have become common and the Supreme Court has had to step in frequently. Last week, the court forced Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi to swear in K Ponmudi as a minister. Governors in Opposition-ruled states have become obstructionist in many matters, claiming powers that they do not have, and have conducted themselves like politicians. They are doing serious damage to the Constitution and the polity. The Kerala Governor and the central government have done a disservice to the Constitution by involving the President also in their political plans.</p>