The Supreme Court on Friday permitted the Kerala government to withdraw its petitions challenging former Governor Arif Mohammed Khan’s delay in granting assent to bills passed by the state legislature, citing that the matter had become infructuous following a recent landmark judgment in the Tamil Nadu Governor case.
A bench comprising Justices P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar passed the order after senior advocate K K Venugopal, appearing for the Kerala government, informed the court that the issues raised in its petitions were effectively addressed by the apex court’s April 8 verdict in the Tamil Nadu case. That judgment set timelines for governors and the President to act on bills passed by state legislatures.
Venugopal submitted that in light of the Tamil Nadu verdict, the Kerala government no longer needed a separate ruling on the matter.
However, Attorney General R Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta opposed the withdrawal, urging the bench to wait for the Supreme Court’s decision on the Article 143 reference currently pending before it. The reference seeks a constitutional opinion from the court on matters relating to the grant of assent to state bills by the President.
Backdrop of the Dispute
In 2023, the Kerala government approached the Supreme Court accusing then Governor Arif Mohammed Khan of sitting on several state bills for over two years without granting or denying assent. The government alleged that the Governor’s inaction had rendered the legislature “ineffective and otiose” and subverted the constitutional process.
The state argued that Khan had referred seven bills to President Droupadi Murmu, despite none involving matters of Centre-state relations — a move the Kerala government contended was constitutionally unwarranted.
Among the bills affected were critical public interest legislations, including four university-related amendment bills and a cooperative society amendment bill. The Home Ministry later informed Kerala that the President had withheld assent to four of the seven bills.
The Kerala plea had urged the court to enforce the constitutional mandate under Article 200, which requires the Governor to act on bills “as soon as possible.” The petitions echoed concerns raised in the Tamil Nadu case, where similar delays led to a historic verdict from the top court.
Impact of the Tamil Nadu Ruling
In the Tamil Nadu case, the Supreme Court not only declared the Governor’s second-round reservation of 10 bills for Presidential assent illegal but also, for the first time, prescribed a three-month deadline for the President to decide on such matters after receiving a reference from the Governor.
This precedent-setting judgment played a pivotal role in Kerala’s decision to withdraw its plea, as it addressed the core constitutional concerns Kerala had raised.
Constitutional Grey Areas and Ongoing Debates
The Constitution does not specify how long the President may take to grant or deny assent to a bill referred under Article 200. Additionally, Article 361 provides immunity to the President and Governors from judicial accountability for their official actions, further complicating efforts to seek redress.
