Background: A Prolonged Standoff

The ongoing confrontation between States and constitutional authorities like Governors and the President over legislative assent has intensified. Kerala, having earlier challenged the delay in assent by former Governor Arif Mohammad Khan, is now targeting the President’s withholding of assent to several State Bills.

These include important legislative proposals — among them the Kerala University Laws (Amendment) Bill, the Lok Ayukta Amendment Bill, and the Police Act Amendment Bill — which were either withheld or left pending without any communication from Rashtrapati Bhavan.

The State is set to argue that the Governor’s referral of the Bills to the President was "erroneous in law", and hence the President’s decision — particularly when it was unreasoned — amounts to a procedural illegality. Therefore, the Bills should be deemed to have received assent, drawing precedent from the Supreme Court's Tamil Nadu judgment.

The Supreme Court's Landmark Ruling: Tamil Nadu Case

Last week, the Supreme Court, in a strongly worded verdict, deemed 10 Bills of the Tamil Nadu Assembly to have received assent due to the Governor’s prolonged and unexplained delay. It termed the Governor’s conduct as "unconstitutional, illegal and derelict of duty."

The Court’s logic was rooted in Article 200 of the Constitution, which allows the Governor to either grant assent, withhold it, return the Bill for reconsideration, or reserve it for the President. What it does not permit is indefinite inaction — a tactic increasingly employed in politically adversarial relationships between State governments and Governors appointed by the Centre.

Kerala's Legal Strategy: Pushing the Envelope

Kerala will now base its argument on two major contentions:

1. Governor’s Initial Error: The Governor’s decision to reserve these Bills for the President, without first taking a stance or providing reasons, is legally untenable.

2. President’s Unreasoned Withholding of Assent: The Supreme Court had observed that the President must assign “clear and detailed reasons” when withholding assent. In Kerala’s case, the President provided none — a procedural gap that Kerala argues invalidates the action.

As a result, the State will request that all pending Bills, including those where assent has been withheld by the President without explanation, be deemed as passed.

Implications: Judiciary in the Middle of Executive-Legislative Turf War

While Kerala’s move seems logical in the face of legislative paralysis, it opens a larger constitutional dilemma — Should courts be routinely asked to compel action from Governors and Presidents, or interpret assent as deemed?

1. Undermining the Governor’s Constitutional Role

• Frequent court interventions in such matters, critics argue, could reduce the Governor’s position to ceremonial compliance.

• Though the Constitution does not envision the Governor as an agent of the Centre, judicial activism in compelling assent could deepen the perception of the office as politically compromised.

2. Weakening the Doctrine of Separation of Powers

• The Constitution clearly lays out a tripartite separation of powers between the legislature, executive, and judiciary.

• The act of the President withholding assent is part of the executive process, and interpreting or overturning that decision, particularly when it’s made in the President’s discretion under Article 201, could be seen as judicial encroachment.

• Critics caution that the courts, while resolving constitutional logjams, must avoid judicial overreach that dilutes executive prerogatives.

Constitutional Debate: Where Does Authority Lie?

At the heart of this legal challenge is the ambiguous nature of Article 200 and Article 201 of the Constitution:

• Article 200 gives Governors limited time-bound options. The Supreme Court verdict clarifies that inaction is not among them.

• Article 201, however, which applies to Bills reserved for the President, does not specify a timeline, giving the executive wider discretion.

This lack of symmetry is being tested in Kerala’s petition — can inactivity under Article 201 be treated with the same urgency and expectation as under Article 200?

What Comes Next?

The Supreme Court’s decision in the Tamil Nadu case may serve as a persuasive precedent, but Kerala's invocation of that principle in the context of Presidential assent pushes the constitutional debate further. The final verdict will likely shape the future of legislative autonomy, executive accountability, and the limits of judicial intervention in the law-making process.

Conclusion: Is Judicial Recourse a New Normal?

Kerala’s challenge underscores a broader constitutional crisis: when Governors and the President withhold or delay assent without reason, can courts be the last resort for legislative justice? Or does this shift erode the foundational principle of separation of powers?

As more States — particularly those ruled by parties not aligned with the Centre — find themselves at odds with constitutional functionaries, the Supreme Court may increasingly be called upon to define the contours of legislative assent. The final outcome in Kerala’s case will not only shape the fate of pending Bills but may redraw the boundaries of institutional accountability in Indian federalism.