The Supreme Court today adjourned hearing in petitions filed by the State of Kerala against the Kerala Governor over the delay in granting assent to bills passed by the State Legislative Assembly. During the hearing, the Central Government appeared and sought time to file its reply, contending that the issues raised in the present matter are factually distinct and not covered by the recent judgment delivered in the matter of State of Tamil Nadu v. The Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025).

The Bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, noting the submissions made by the Centre, listed the matter in the month of May.

Senior Advocate K.K. Venugopal, appearing for the State of Kerala, submitted that the issues raised in the present petition are substantially covered by the recent judgment delivered in the Tamil Nadu Governor case. He pointed out that the only limited question now remaining is regarding the time frame within which a reference must be made to the President. He submitted that this time limit has been held to be three months, as per a circular issued by the Government of India, and no further questions survive for adjudication.

The Bench then asked Venugopal, “What do you propose to do? It is your petition. Are you intending to withdraw? It is covered by the judgment and therefore you are not allowed to argue it beyond the terms of the judgment.”

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union Government, submitted that the Tamil Nadu judgment does not fully address the issues in the Kerala case. He contended that the facts are materially different and sought time to file a detailed reply to demonstrate how the issues raised here fall outside the scope of the Tamil Nadu decision.

Meanwhile, Venugopal withdrew the amendment application that had been filed pursuant to an earlier order, stating that the issues raised therein would be covered by the decision in State of Tamil Nadu v. The Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025).

In November 2023, a bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra issued notice in the present matter. During the proceedings, the bench criticised the conduct of then Kerala Governor Arif Mohammed Khan for withholding action on bills passed by the Assembly for nearly two years.

Later, the Governor referred some of the bills to the President. Challenging both the reference to the President and the President’s refusal to grant assent, the State of Kerala filed another writ petition in 2024. The Supreme Court issued notice to the Union in that matter in July 2024.

Pertinently, a Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan delivered a landmark judgment in the matter concerning Tamil Nadu Governor Dr. RN Ravi’s inaction and delay in processing Bills passed by the Tamil Nadu State Legislature, as well as his failure to act on files, government orders, and policy decisions forwarded by the State Government. The Court held that the substantive portion of Article 200 uses the expression “shall declare” to underline that inaction is constitutionally impermissible. It observed that the Governor is bound to act with expediency and that Article 200 does not permit the Governor to indefinitely withhold assent or exercise any form of veto, whether pocket or absolute.

Cause Title: State Of Kerala & Anr. v. Governor For State of Kerala & Ors. (W.P.(C) No. 1264/2023)


Justice PS NarasimhaJustice Joymalya Bagchi

Namrata Banerjee

Supreme Court Correspondent

Namrata is a Correspondent covering the Supreme Court of India. She has previously practiced law and worked in-house with a Public Sector Undertaking.