Why in the news? 

The unusual move of the Kerala Government will open doors for a Constitutional debate on the scope of a Judicial Review of the decisions of the President of India.

Context-

• The President had withheld assent to Kerala University Laws (Amendment No. 2) Bill 2022, University Law Amendment Bill, 2022, and the University Law Amendment Bill, 2021 from the seven Bills that were referred to her in November 2023.

Key issues as per this situation- 

• Legal Challenge by Kerala: Kerala plans to challenge the legality of President Droupadi Murmu withholding her assent for certain Bills passed by the Kerala Legislature.
• Scope of Judicial Review: Kerala’s move will open doors for a Constitutional debate on the scope of judicial review of the decisions of the President of India. The state argues that the legality of the President’s decisions and the factors influencing them can be judicially reviewed.

The power of the President to withhold assent to a state bill is derived from the Constitution of India:

• Constitutional Authority: The power of the President to withhold assent to a state bill is outlined in Article 201 of the Constitution of India.
• Procedure: According to Article 200, when a bill is passed by the state legislature, it is presented to the Governor for assent. The Governor then forwards the bill to the President for consideration.
• Discretionary Power: The President has discretionary authority to either give assent to the bill or withhold it. This means the President can refuse to approve the bill if deemed necessary.
• Reasons for Withholding Assent: The President may choose to withhold assent for various reasons, such as if the bill violates constitutional provisions, conflicts with central legislation, or is against public interest.
• Constitutional Morality: The President’s decision to withhold assent should be guided by constitutional principles and morality. This ensures that the exercise of this power is in line with the spirit of the Constitution.

What are the Implications of the President withholding assent to a state bill?

• Legislative Stalemate: Withholding assent to a state bill effectively prevents it from becoming law. This can lead to a legislative stalemate, especially if the bill is crucial for the functioning of the state government or addresses pressing issues.
• Impact on State Governance: The inability to enact a state bill due to the President’s refusal to give assent can hinder the governance and administration of the state. It may delay or impede the implementation of policies and measures intended to address local challenges or meet the needs of the state’s residents.
• Constitutional Conflict: The withholding of assent by the President may lead to constitutional conflicts between the state government and the Union government. It raises questions about the division of powers between the Centre and the states and the extent of the President’s authority to state legislation.
• Political Implications: The President’s decision to withhold assent to a state bill can have political repercussions. It may strain the relationship between the state government and the central government, especially if there are underlying political tensions or differences in ideology.
• Legal Challenges: The state government may choose to challenge the President’s decision to withhold assent through legal means. This could involve seeking judicial review to determine the legality and constitutionality of the President’s action, especially if it is perceived as arbitrary or mala fide.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now