The Centre on Tuesday opposed the Kerala government’s move to withdraw its plea from the Supreme Court that had challenged the prolonged delay by the Governor in granting assent to several bills passed by the state legislature.
Appearing for Kerala, senior advocate K.K. Venugopal informed a bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi that the state intended to withdraw the plea, as the matter had become infructuous with the bills having been subsequently referred to the President. However, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta objected, saying, “These are constitutional issues. It cannot be filed lightly and withdrawn lightly… we are working on the issues involved.”
Mehta described the withdrawal as “serious,” especially when initiated by a senior constitutional expert. “When a person of your stature withdraws, then even withdrawal has to be taken seriously,” he remarked to Venugopal.
Venugopal argued that the petition, which pertained to the inordinate delay by then Governor Arif Mohammed Khan in acting on seven bills, was overtaken by subsequent developments and had been addressed in later petitions. The court acknowledged Kerala’s right to withdraw its plea but scheduled the matter for May 13 for further directions.
The development comes amid ongoing litigation related to gubernatorial inaction on state bills. The Kerala government has filed multiple petitions seeking time-bound directives for Governors and the President to act on bills, citing a July 2023 instance where Governor Khan sat on bills for nearly two years.
On April 22, the Supreme Court had said it would examine whether its April 8 judgment in a Tamil Nadu case—where the court struck down the reservation of 10 bills to the President and set a three-month timeline for presidential assent—would also apply to Kerala’s grievances.
While Venugopal maintained that the Tamil Nadu ruling covered the issues raised by Kerala, Solicitor General Mehta disagreed, urging that Kerala’s case involved distinct questions requiring full submissions.
The court asked Venugopal to mention Kerala’s third petition—challenging the President’s withholding of assent to four bills—before the Chief Justice of India so that it may be tagged with the current proceedings. Venugopal said the CJI had already directed listing of that matter for May 13.
The case touches upon complex constitutional questions related to the time Governors and the President can take in assenting to state legislation. The Constitution does not prescribe a specific time limit for such assent, leading to mounting concerns over executive inaction undermining legislatures.
Kerala’s petitions argue that none of the bills in question concerned Centre-state relations and hence should have been dealt with by the Governor without referring them to the President. The delay, the state claims, “subverted the functioning” of the state legislature and made it “ineffective and otiose.”
Four of the seven bills—including amendments to university laws and the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act—were subsequently denied assent by the President, according to communication received from the Ministry of Home Affairs.
