Kerala Govt’s Legal Maneuver Draws BJP Ire

In Thiruvananthapuram, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) issued censure towards the Left government of Kerala for its decision to approach the Supreme Court regarding President Droupadi Murmu, asserting that it underscored the Marxist party’s bias against women and tribal groups.

Senior party figure and Union Minister V Muraleedharan alleged that the Communist Party of India (Marxist) has consistently adopted an “anti-female” stance, even opposing Murmu’s nomination to the highest office in the nation.

To support his contention of the Marxist party’s inherent anti-female stance, he noted the absence of any female members in the Left party’s politburo until the year 2022.

The criticism from the saffron party emerged following the LDF government’s defense of its decision to petition the apex court against Murmu’s withholding of assent to four bills passed by the state legislature, citing the “significant constitutional implications” of her actions.

Reflecting on historical context, Muraleedharan remarked on the CPI (M)’s opposition to President Murmu, attributing it to the party’s ingrained bias against women.

He emphasized that while bill delays were not unprecedented, this marked the first instance of legal action against a President.

Muraleedharan further asserted that citizens advocating for social justice and equality would resist any attempts to demean President Murmu.

He highlighted the joint filing of the case against the President by the Chief Secretary of the state, along with senior CPI (M) leader T P Ramakrishnan, questioning the legal validity of such collaboration between a civil service official and a political figure.

The BJP’s response followed the state government’s submission of a plea to the Supreme Court, naming the Union government, the Secretary to the President of India, Kerala Governor Arif Mohammad Khan, and his additional secretary as respondents.

In its plea, the state sought a declaration of the President’s refusal to grant assent to the bills as unconstitutional, without providing any reasoning, along with other remedies. Additionally, the state government sought a directive declaring Governor Khan’s reservation of seven bills, including the aforementioned four, for the President’s consideration as “unlawful.”