An unprecedented constitutional call appeared in the state, while the President detained her consent to the Malaysian law approved by the Keral Assembly ten years ago without being proceeding.
The movement of the President, as emphasized, violated the Supreme Court judgment of 8 April in the case of Governor Tamil Nadu, where the court ruled that the president could not apply absolute veto about accounts and could not withhold consent without the facility.
First after judgment
It was the first bill to withstand the president’s predictions without withdrawing any reasons from the lower order of the Supreme Court.
The Top Court ordered that the detention of the consent for the bill “must be accompanied by sound and specific reasons that require a collision, by clearly issuing political considerations that such an action is predicate”. The court went one step further and added that the constitutional “requirement and liability for the allocation of reasons for detention of consent is to the president and the reasons assigned by the president must be communicated to the state government.” The bill was returned to the State Government on the second day without any reasons.
The President previously detained his consent to three laws, namely the Laws of the University of Keral (Amendment No. 2) Bill 2022, the University Act, 2022, and the draft University Law Act, 2021, which in November 2023 advanced to Governor Arif Mohammed Khan.
By the way, the President’s step comes at a time when the state government petitions questioning her actions are considered to be the Supreme Court.
The state government will not discuss this issue yet, said P. Rajeeve, State Minister of Law.
No legal precedent
The best legal officials of the state felt that the president’s act had created an unusual legal and constitutional crisis, where she went against the Supreme Court’s order, which is the law of the country. The state may be forced to move the Supreme Court against the President’s law. In the recent legal history of the country, there were no such legal precedents and did not have to anticipate such a legal crisis, the Supreme Court’s chief lawyer said.
Published – 1 June 2025 9:02
