Thiruvananthapuram | The Keralam Assembly on Monday passed a resolution urging the Centre to return the Kerala Private Universities Bill, now pending with the President, in what the government called possibly the first such move in the state's legislative history.
Higher Education Minister Roji M John moved the resolution seeking the return of the Kerala Private Universities (Establishment and Regulation) Bill, 2025, which was passed during the previous Left government.
He said the state government no longer intended to proceed with the legislation in its present form.
The bill, aimed at establishing, recognising and regulating private universities in the state, was passed by the Assembly on March 25, 2025, and submitted to the governor for approval on April 21, 2025.
The governor subsequently reserved the bill for the consideration of the President under Article 200 of the Constitution, the resolution stated.
The Ministry of Home Affairs had sought clarifications from the state government on certain provisions of the bill, particularly those concerning compulsory land ownership, possession rights, mandatory security and fixed deposits, the minister said.
The state Cabinet, at its meeting on September 16, 2026, decided to move a resolution in the Assembly seeking the return of the bill, he said.
John said the government was seeking the return of the bill under Rule 118 of the Assembly's Rules of Procedure, as the legislation remained pending with the President and had not been returned to the House.
"This is perhaps the first time such a situation has arisen in the history of the Keralam Legislative Assembly," he said, adding that the bill had remained in limbo for around one-and-a-half years.
He said private universities and foreign universities were being established and functioning in other states, while uncertainty surrounding the legislation had prevented the government from moving forward with similar initiatives in Keralam.
John said the government wanted to establish a clear legislative framework for private universities, deemed-to-be universities and foreign universities in the state.
Leader of the Opposition Pinarayi Vijayan, however, questioned the constitutional validity of the move, arguing that the Assembly could not adopt an alternative procedure while the bill remained under the President's consideration.
Referring to Article 201 of the Constitution, Vijayan said the President could grant assent to a bill, withhold assent or return it to the Assembly for reconsideration.
He said the governor could not be asked to seek the return of the bill, as the President could return it to the legislature only on the advice of the Central government.
Once a bill is returned, the Assembly can reconsider it in the light of the President's suggestions or pass it again without accepting them, Vijayan said.
He argued that no other constitutional procedure could be adopted at this stage.
Speaker Thiruvanchoor Radhakrishnan, in his ruling, said the resolution under Rule 118 was admissible because the bill was currently under the President's consideration and could not be treated as a bill pending before the Assembly.
He said Rule 94 of the Assembly's Rules of Procedure provides for the withdrawal of a bill by the member in charge when the legislative proposal is to be abandoned, replaced by a new bill or introduced later in a revised form.
However, since the Private Universities Bill had been reserved for the President's consideration, it could not be withdrawn directly by the Assembly at this stage, the Speaker said.
He cited Rule 96, which states that a bill returned by the Governor with a message under Article 200 is considered pending before the Assembly.
The House could take further action only if the President returned the bill through the governor, he said.
The Speaker said Rule 118 allows a minister to move a resolution on a matter of public interest, while Rule 119 lays down the conditions for its admissibility.
He said the notice submitted by the Higher Education minister complied with these provisions and dismissed the procedural objections raised by LDF MLAs K N Balagopal, K Rajan and the Leader of the Opposition.
The Speaker also pointed out that a government order issued on September 17, 2026, stating that the bill "shall be withdrawn" was procedurally incorrect, as a bill cannot be withdrawn through a government order.
The order was cancelled through a fresh government order issued on October 10, 2026, which stated that a resolution under Rule 118 would be moved seeking the return of the bill, he said.
The Speaker then permitted the Higher Education minister to move the resolution, which was subsequently passed.
