President withholds assent to Malayalam Bill without giving reason in violation of SC order

An unprecedented constitutional challenge has cropped up in the State with the President withholding her assent to the Malayalam Bill passed by the Kerala Assembly a decade ago, without assigning any reasons.

The President’s move, it has been pointed out, violated the April 8 judgment of the Supreme Court in the Tamil Nadu Governor case where the court held that the President cannot exercise an absolute veto on Bills and cannot withhold assent without furnishing reasons.

First after judgment

This was the first Bill to be withheld assent by the President without assigning any reasons since the landmark order of the top court.

The apex court had directed that the withholding of assent for a Bill “must be accompanied by sound and specific reasons that necessitate the withholding, by clearly outlaying the policy considerations on which such an action is predicate.” The court went a step further and added that a constitutional “requirement and responsibility of assigning reasons to the withholding of assent is cast upon the President and the reasons assigned by the President for withholding of assent must be communicated to the State government concerned.” The Bill was returned to the State government the other day without assigning any reasons.

The President had earlier withheld assent to three Bills namely the Kerala University Laws (Amendment No. 2) Bill 2022, University Law Amendment Bill, 2022, and the University Law Amendment Bill, 2021, which were referred to her in November 2023 by the then Governor Arif Mohammed Khan.

Incidentally, the President’s move comes at a time when the State government’s petitions challenging her actions on the Bills are under the consideration of the Supreme Court.

The State government is yet to discuss the issue, said P. Rajeeve, State Minister for Law.

No legal precedent

Top legal officers of the State felt that the President’s act has created an unusual legal and constitutional crisis where she went against the Supreme Court order, which is the law of the land. The State may be forced to move the Supreme Court against the act of the President. There have been no such legal precedents in the recent legal history of the country and the framers of the Constitution may not have foreseen such a legal crisis, said a senior Supreme Court lawyer.

Published - June 01, 2025 09:02 pm IST