Constitutional Concerns with Governors' Actions
Some Governors' handling of state legislation is seen as a constitutional violation.
The Supreme Court of India intervened in Punjab and questioned Governors' actions in Tamil Nadu and Telangana.
It was anticipated that Governors would stop their inaction on Bills following the Supreme Court’s scrutiny.
Governors are now sending disapproved Bills to the President for consideration.
When the President, based on Union government advice, refuses assent, State legislatures have no recourse.
Federalism
This practice raises concerns that presidential assent provisions are being misused to subvert federalism.
Legal Challenge
Kerala has challenged the practice in court, questioning the legitimacy of sending Bills to the President and the refusals of assent.
The Court has previously ruled that Governors must grant assent if the Assembly re-adopts Bills.
Governors are expected to act on Bills "as soon as possible," a principle underscored by the Court.
In Kerala, Bills were delayed for 10 to 23 months, with several sent to the President and some refused assent without reasons.
Central Interference Issue
The situation highlights concerns about indirect central intervention in State legislative matters, raising constitutional questions
COMMENTS