NEW DELHI: The Kerala government has approached the Supreme Court seeking the dismissal of a Presidential reference, arguing that it is "not maintainable" and "suppresses crucial facts."
In a 13-page application filed before the apex court, the state government contends that the reference—moved by President Droupadi Murmu on May 13—fails to disclose a key Supreme Court judgment that already addresses 11 of the 14 questions raised.
The reference pertains to the issue of timelines for Governors and the President to act on bills passed by state legislatures. However, Kerala argues that the April 8 verdict in State of Tamil Nadu v. The Governor of Tamil Nadu—where the Supreme Court ruled that governors must decide on bills within three months—directly covers most of the queries. The state alleges that the Presidential reference deliberately omits this judgment, effectively seeking an indirect overruling of the Court’s own decision, which it cannot do under Article 143.
"A reference under Article 143 cannot be used to overrule findings of law and fact in earlier judgments," the Kerala government stated. It further pointed out that the Union government has not filed any review or curative petition against the April 8 ruling, making it binding under Article 141. "The President and the council of ministers must act in aid of the Supreme Court under Article 144," the plea added.
The state also accused the reference of misinterpreting Article 200 by falsely claiming that no timeline exists for governors to act on Bills. "The foundational issues in queries 1 to 11 have already been settled in the Tamil Nadu, Punjab, and Telangana cases," Kerala argued, urging the court to reject the reference as "misleading."
The Supreme Court, meanwhile, has agreed to examine the Presidential reference and has sought responses from the Centre and all states by July 29. A five-judge Constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice BR Gavai, will hear the matter on August 29, with the assistance of Attorney General R Venkataramani. The court will determine whether judicially enforceable timelines can be imposed on Governors and the President regarding pending Bills.
The controversy stems from the April 8 ruling by a two-judge bench, which held that Governors must act within three months if withholding assent to a bill and within one month if a bill is re-enacted. The court had invoked Article 142 to declare Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi’s inaction as "illegal" and deemed 10 pending Bills as approved. President Murmu’s reference challenges this verdict, raising questions on whether Governors are bound by ministerial advice and if their discretion under Article 200 is subject to judicial review.
With Kerala now accusing the reference of being a "backdoor attempt" to undo settled law, the Supreme Court’s upcoming decision could have far-reaching implications on Centre-state relations and the powers of constitutional authorities.
Out of 14 crucial questions, the majority and important were as follows:
1) What are the constitutional options before a Governor when a Bill is presented under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?
2) Is the Governor bound by the aid & advice tendered by the Council of Ministers while exercising all options available with him when a Bill is presented before him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?
3) Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India justiciable?
4) Is Article 361 of the Constitution of India an absolute bar to the judicial review in relation to the actions of a Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?
5) In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed time limit, and the manner of exercise of powers by the Governor, can timelines be imposed and the manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of all powers under Article 200 of the Constitution of India by the Governor?
