The CPI(M)-led Kerala Government on Saturday which is on a warpath with the Centre over a lot of issues filed a petition in the Aupreme Court against the President of India for withholding assent for the four Bills passed by the Legislative Assembly without disclosing any reasons. The State government also filed a case against Governor Arif Mohammed Khan for keeoing the Bills pending for a long and indefinite period and later forwarding it for the Presidential assent.
The Bills which have been kept pending by the President include the controversial one related to the governance of universities. One of them seeks to remove the Governor as chancellor of universities and make Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan as Chancellor of all Government Universities in the State.
According to Save University Forum, an organization engaged in ensuring the sanctity of the centres of higher learning, the Bill has been enacted to give full power to the CPI(M) to appoint persons of their choice as Vice Chancellors and faculty members. None of the State-run universities have full time vice-chancellors because of the impasse between the Governor and the CPI(M) over the appointment of close relations of party bigwigs in these posts.
Another Bill which has been kept in abeyance by the President is the Kerala Cooperative Societies Amendment) Bill, seeking to give voting rights to the nominated members in the Kerala Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation (Milma). The latter would help the ruling LDF to gain control over the Milma’s governance a la the sugar cane credit societies in Maharashtra.
A source close to Governor Arif Mohammed Khan told The Pioneer that the Raj Bhavan was perplexed by the action of the Kerala Government in dragging the President to the Court. “This is an unprecedented move and the CPI(M) have been wrongly advised by its legal luminaries. We saw the apex court declaring as null and void the extension of service granted to the vice chancellor of the Kannur University, a sidekick of the chief minister,” sad the source.
The President’s secretary is the prime respondent in the suit filed by the chief secretary and a CPI(M) state leader. The unusual suit challenges the legality of the President’s action to withhold her assent to bills referred to her.
Article 163 (2) of the Constitution says that if any question arises whether any matter is or is not a matter as respects which the governor is by or under this Constitution required to act in his discretion , the decision of the Governor in his discretion shall be final, and the validity of anything done by the Governor shall not be called in question on the ground that he ought or ought not to have acted in his discretion. The Constitution also makes it clear that the Governor’s decision would be the final one in the eventuality of any difference of opinion with nthe State government over the special powers enmjoyed by the former.
