New Delhi, July 28 (UNI) The State of Kerala has urged the Supreme Court to return unanswered the Presidential reference seeking clarity on the powers and timelines governing Governors and the President in assenting to state legislation.
Terming the reference “legally untenable” and “a misuse of Article 143″, the state contended that it suppresses binding constitutional judgments and aims to indirectly overturn settled law.
In an application filed before the Constitution Bench, Kerala questioned the maintainability of the reference and sought its dismissal on the ground that 11 out of the 14 questions posed had already been conclusively answered by the apex court in State of Tamil Nadu v. The Governor of Tamil Nadu, delivered on April 8, 2025.
The state argued that the reference, made barely a month later on May 13, 2025, failed to disclose this crucial judgment, rendering the exercise improper and misleading.
“The very foundation of the reference is flawed,” Kerala submitted through Advocate C.K. Sasi. “It proceeds on the incorrect premise that Article 200 of the Constitution does not impose any timeframe on the Governor for granting assent.
“This is incorrect as the proviso clearly mandates that the Governor shall act ‘as soon as possible’ after the Bill is presented.”
Kerala referred to three recent constitutional rulings: State of Telangana v. Secretary to Governor, State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to the Governor and State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu.
These judgments, Kerala said, had settled the law that both the Governor and the President must act within reasonable timelines and cannot indefinitely withhold assent.
The application also quoted paragraph 85 of the Cauvery judgment to assert that once the Supreme Court has pronounced on a legal question, it cannot be re-examined through a Presidential reference under Article 143.
“This reference effectively seeks to review and overrule existing binding judgments of this Court, without acknowledging their existence a power not vested in the President,” it said.
Kerala strongly objected to what it termed an attempt to indirectly reopen settled constitutional questions.
“The Court cannot sit in appeal over its own decisions at the instance of the President.
“Such a reference, in the absence of any review or curative petition, amounts to bypassing Article 141 which makes Supreme Court judgments binding on all authorities,” the application noted.
In April 2025, the Supreme Court held that the Governor’s delay in assenting to Bills was subject to judicial review and that the absence of a fixed timeline in Article 200 could not be used to indefinitely block the legislative process.
It further ruled that the President, under Article 201, must act within three months of receiving a Bill and communicate reasons for any delay.
Following this ruling, President Droupadi Murmu had referred 14 constitutional questions to the Supreme Court, questioning whether the judiciary could prescribe deadlines or whether such interpretation amounted to judicial overreach.
The reference also challenged the notion of “deemed assent” being inferred from inaction.
A five-judge Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha, and Atul S. Chandurkar, had issued notice to all States and the Centre on the Presidential reference.
Kerala, however, maintains that the reference misrepresents constitutional provisions, seeks to circumvent binding rulings, and deserves to be returned unanswered. “This is a serious misuse of the advisory jurisdiction of this Court,” the state emphasised.
The Supreme Court is yet to take a final call on whether it will proceed to answer the reference or heed Kerala’s plea to declare it non-maintainable.
