Supreme Court Allows Kerala To Withdraw Plea Against Governor's Delay In Assenting To Bills Despite Centre’s Objection
The Court allowed Kerala to withdraw its petitions, even as the Centre opposed the move, arguing that the State was relying on the Tamil Nadu Governor judgment and the issues were linked to the pending Presidential reference.
Justice P.S. Narasimha, Justice Atul S. Chandurkar, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court today allowed the withdrawal of two petitions filed by the Kerala Government in 2023 against the Governor’s delay in granting assent to Bills passed by the State Assembly.
A Bench of Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice A.S. Chandurkar heard the matter. Senior Advocate KK Venugopal, appearing for the State of Kerala, submitted, " My Lords, I hope this time no one will oppose the withdrawal..."
At the outset, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta pointed out that the State had already requested to be heard before a 5-Judge Constitution Bench.
Attorney General R. Venkataramani opposed a blanket withdrawal, stating, “The reliance on Tamil Nadu Governor judgment is relied upon them, it's not like they are withdrawing simpliciter. If that is the case, they may be heard. There is already a Presidential reference…why should they be allowed to withdraw?”
Justice Narasimha noted, “It’s different if they are asking to consider in terms of the judgment.” The Attorney General responded, “Unconditional withdrawal…there is a string attached to their withdrawal.”
Ultimately, the Court allowed the withdrawal of both petitions.
On April 22, 2025, the Court adjourned the hearing. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union Government, sought time to respond, arguing that the issues raised were not covered by the recent ruling in State of Tamil Nadu v. The Governor of Tamil Nadu. “The issues raised in this case are factually distinct and materially different,” he submitted. Senior Advocate K.K. Venugopal maintained that the core issues were already decided and that only the time frame within which a reference must be made to the President remained, as per a circular of the Government of India.
On July 14, the matter was again mentioned before a Bench of Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice A.S. Chandurkar. Senior Advocate Venugopal sought to withdraw the petition, stating that it had become infructuous in light of the Tamil Nadu judgment, which had already dealt with similar issues. However, the Centre opposed the move. Attorney General R. Venkataramani and Solicitor General Mehta requested the Court not to permit withdrawal at this stage. Mehta submitted, “Let this be tagged with the Presidential reference; these issues are pending wider constitutional consideration.” Venugopal questioned the opposition, remarking, “Why my lords are hesitant… this only means both parties will charge money.”
It is pertinent to note that the Court on July 22 issued notice to the Union and all States on a Presidential reference under Article 143(1) concerning the powers of Governors and the President in granting assent to State Bills. A Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai will examine whether judicially enforceable timelines can be prescribed under Articles 200 and 201. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Attorney General R. Venkataramani were requested to assist the Court. Senior Advocate K.K. Venugopal, appearing for Kerala, informed the Bench that the State would raise preliminary objections to the maintainability of the reference.
Cause Title: State Of Kerala & Anr. v. Governor for State of Kerala & Ors. (W.P.(C) No. 1264/2023)
