The Supreme Court on Monday adjourned to July 25 the hearing on the Kerala government’s plea against former Governor Arif Mohammed Khan’s delay in granting assent to bills passed by the state assembly. The bench, comprising Justices P.S. Narasimha and A.S. Chandurkar, deferred the matter after Attorney General R. Venkataramani sought more time.
Senior advocate K.K. Venugopal, appearing for the Kerala government, attempted to withdraw the petition citing the Supreme Court’s recent verdict in the Tamil Nadu Governor case, which addressed similar concerns and laid down timelines for gubernatorial action on bills.
However, both the Attorney General and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta opposed the withdrawal, urging the court to await its decision on the pending Presidential reference under Article 143 of the Constitution concerning the grant of assent to state bills. Mehta also suggested that Kerala’s case could be clubbed with the presidential reference.
Calling the opposition to withdrawal “strange,” Venugopal questioned the rationale, adding, “This only means both parties will charge money.” The bench clarified that there should be no objection to withdrawal “tentatively” and fixed the next hearing for July 25.
The Kerala government had moved the Supreme Court last year, alleging that then Governor Arif Mohammed Khan, now serving as the Governor of Bihar, sat on several bills for nearly two years. The state argued that seven bills had been unreasonably reserved for the President’s consideration — an action it claimed undermined the legislature’s authority.
Among the bills affected were the University Laws (Amendment) Bills of 2021 and 2022, and the Kerala Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Bill, 2022. The Union Home Ministry later informed the state that the President had withheld assent to four of the seven bills.
The Supreme Court had earlier observed that it would examine whether the ruling in the Tamil Nadu Governor case — which struck down the re-reservation of 10 bills to the President and prescribed a three-month timeframe for presidential decisions — applied to the Kerala matter as well.
The Kerala government had argued that none of the seven bills involved matters affecting Centre-State relations, and therefore, the Governor was constitutionally bound to act independently and expeditiously under Article 200. The continued delay, the state claimed, rendered the state legislature “ineffective and otiose.”
The case raises constitutional questions about the discretionary powers of Governors, the timeline for granting assent, and the accountability mechanisms in situations where executive delay affects democratic law-making processes. The apex court’s forthcoming decision could have far-reaching implications for Centre-State relations and the constitutional functioning of State Governors.
