New Delhi, 26 July

In a significant development, the Supreme Court on Friday agreed to consider the separate pleas of Opposition-ruled Kerala and West Bengal, alleging the denial of assent to bills passed by the respective legislative assemblies.

Kerala also alleged that Governor Arif Mohammed Khan referred certain bills to President Droupadi Murmu and those were yet to be cleared.

Taking note of the pleas, the top court issued notices to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs and the secretaries of Kerala Governor Khan and his West Bengal counterpart CV Ananda Bose and sought their replies within three weeks. The bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra also directed the Trinamool Congress-led West Bengal government to make the home ministry a party to the petition.

The CPI(M)-led Left Democratic Front government of Kerala moved the top court in March, alleging that certain bills cleared by the legislative assembly were referred to the president by the governor and these were still pending assent. West Bengal, in its plea, alleged the governor was withholding assent on eight bills.

Senior advocate KK Venugopal, appearing for the Kerala government, said, "This is the most unfortunate situation." The bench said, "We are issuing notices to the secretary to the governors and the Union in both cases."

Venugopal further said, "The bills are pending for the last eight months. I am challenging the reference to the president itself ... This is a confusion among the governors. They keep the bills pending. This is against the Constitution."

Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for West Bengal, said he would make the Centre a party and file a written note to assist the court in deciding the plea. He referred to instances of other states, including Tamil Nadu, and said the moment the top court fixed the cases for hearing, certain bills were either cleared or referred to the president.

Venugopal said there was a need for the top court to lay down guidelines on when the governors could return or refer the bills.

Senior advocate Jaideep Gupta, also representing West Bengal, said on Friday morning that when the other side was informed the matter was coming up for hearing in the top court, the governor referred certain bills to the president. "Although there is no official communication, we have come to know about the development," he added.

Kerala said its plea pertained to the acts of the governor in reserving seven bills, which he was required to deal with himself, to the president.

Not one of the seven bills had anything to do with Centre-state relations, it said. It added these bills were pending with the governor for as long as about two years and his action "subverted" the functioning of the state legislature, rendering its very existence "ineffective and otiose". "The bills include public interest bills that are for the public good, and even these have been rendered ineffective by the governor not dealing with each one of them 'as soon as possible', as required by the proviso to Article 200," the plea said.

The state government said on February 23 and 29, the home ministry informed it that the president had withheld assent to four of the seven bills -- University Laws (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 2021; Kerala Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Bill, 2022; University Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2022; and University Laws (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill, 2022.

The Constitution is silent on how much time the president can take in granting assent to a bill passed by a state legislature and referred to the Rashtrapati Bhavan for presidential consideration or for denying consent.

Article 361 of the Constitution says the president, or the governor of a state, shall not be answerable to any court for the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of his office or for any act done or purporting to be done by him in the exercise and performance of those powers and duties. West Bengal, in its plea, said the denial of assent without assigning any reason to the bills passed by the assembly was contrary to Article 200 of the Constitution.

The article provides for the process for a bill passed by the assembly of a state to be presented to the governor for assent. The governor may either assent or withhold assent or reserve the bill for consideration by the president.

"When a bill has been passed by the legislative assembly of a state or, in the case of a state having a legislative council, has been passed by both Houses of the legislature of the state, it shall be presented to the governor and the governor shall declare either that he assents to the bill or that he withholds assent therefrom or that he reserves the bill for the consideration of the president," Article 200 states.

The bills awaiting consent of the governor are the West Bengal University Laws (Amendment) Bill, West Bengal University of Animal and Fishery Sciences (Amendment) Bill, West Bengal Private University Laws (Amendment) Bill, West Bengal Krishi Viswavidyalaya Laws, West Bengal University of Health Sciences (Amendment) Bill and the Aliah University (Amendment) Bill.

These were passed by the state assembly in 2022. The West Bengal Town and Country (Planning and Development) (Amendment) Bill was passed in 2023.