Pending Bills: Kerala submits amended plea with Supreme Court

New Delhi: Kerala has re-filed its plea with the Supreme Court, asking for an order to establish rules under which the governor may reserve bills that are brought before him until the President considers them, as well as any other suitable orders or directives that the Court feels fit to approve.

In a previous hearing, K K Venugopal, a senior advocate and former Attorney General of India (AG), represented the State of Kerala before the Supreme Court. He stated that certain Bills were initially ordinances issued by the governor in accordance with Article 213 of the Constitution, and there was no justification for the governor to forward them to the President at this point, the New Indian Express reported.

The state government's request to include this point in the modified plea was later granted by the Supreme Court in its order. Following the earlier ruling of the Apex Court, the government submitted the amended petition on Friday and requested the appropriate orders in the ongoing dispute between the governor and the Kerala government. The SC register indicates that the case is probably going to be heard after the first week of January when the courts reopen following the winter break.

In its amended argument, the government stated that the first proviso to Article 200 of the Constitution should be interpreted as soon as possible by the highest court, with reference to the timeline that applies to the governor's bills being considered.

The governor's actions, according to the petition, are wrong and threaten the "basic foundations of our Constitution." Kerala claimed in the amended suit that the governor kept eight bills pending. The State Legislature passed these bills, and in accordance with Article 200, they were referred to the governor for his approval.

It was noted that the governor sat on the Bills that were passed by the state legislature. Thus, the SC should provide directives in this respect. In its request, it further stated that the SC ought to rule that the governor's failure to act on the bills that were brought before him to review was a violation of his constitutionally mandated responsibilities and duties.