THIRUVANANTHAPURAM : In the wake of President Droupadi Murmu ‘withholding assent’ to three bills passed by the state legislature, focus is back on the constitutional provision under which it was done. Article 201 of the Constitution deals with Bills reserved by governors for the President’s consideration .
The President can give assent to the Bill, withhold assent or direct the governor to return the Bill to the assembly. Raj Bhavan sources confirmed President Murmu’s office has only conveyed that “assent has been withheld” for the three bills and that there is no mention of returning them to the legislature. “Withholding assent without specific direction to return the Bills means they have been vetoed,” constitutional expert and former Lok Sabha secretary general P D T Achary told TNIE. However, the state government can petition the Supreme Court seeking a direction to the President’s office to explain the reasons for withholding assent. “When the assembly has passed the Bill exercising its constitutional power it has a right to know why assent has been refused,” Achary said.
“All constitutional authorities are required to act in a reasonable manner. Arbitrary decisions are not permitted by the Constitution. So, whether it is the governor or the President, the orders issued by them should be speaking orders,” he said.