Kerala Governor’s Withholding of Bills | Day 3: The State of Kerala asks for application of the TN Governor judgement to this case
Pendency of bills before the Governor of KeralaJudges: P.S. Narasimha J, Joymalya Bagchi J
Today, a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justices P.S. Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi, briefly heard Senior Advocate K.K. Venugopal in the state of Kerala’s challenge to Governor Arif Mohammed Khan’s prolonged withholding of eight bills passed by the State Legislature. The case was substantively heard last in November 2023, when former Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud had sharply pointed out that the Governor had to be accountable to the Constitution.
Today’s hearing came two weeks after a two-judge Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan ruled on the scope of Article 200 in a similar case involving Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi, who was withholding ten state bills. The Court had found the Governor’s conduct to be “illegal” and “erroneous”.
Background
On 1 November 2023, the State of Kerala filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the Governor of Kerala’s prolonged inaction on eight bills passed by the State legislature and pending his assent under Article 200. The State called the Governor’s delay a threat to the “basic foundations of our Constitution.”
The state government’s petition argued that since the legislature had already deliberated on the “public interest” involved in the Bills, the Governor should either grant assent or return them within a reasonable time. Indefinite pendency of the Bills by the Governor, it said, violated Article 14 as it was manifestly arbitrary. It also argued that the delay violated Article 21, as the bills in question are “welfare legislations.”
The core issues in this case mirror those raised in two other pending matters: The State of Tamil Nadu v Governor of Tamil Nadu, and State of Telangana v Secretary to her Excellency, the Governor for State of Telangana, both arising from writ petitions filed in 2023.
Issue
- Does the Supreme Court's Judgement in The State of Tamil Nadu v Governor of Tamil Nadu apply here?
State of Kerala: Guidelines on Governor’s power to assent no longer needed after Tamil Nadu ruling
Appearing for the Left Democratic Front-led government of Kerala, Venugopal argued that the top court’s recent judgement in the Tamil Nadu Governor’s case squarely applied to this case. He pointed out that the Court had laid down a three-month limit for Governors to act on bills when their Council of Ministers has advised assent.
In the earlier hearing in November 2023, Venugopal had requested the Court to lay down guidelines on the power of the Governor under Article 200—when a bill could be reserved for the consideration of the President, when the Governor is authorised to return the bill to the legislative assembly with a message, and the circumstances when a Governor may grant their assent to the bills so presented.
In the hearing today, Venugopal said that such guidelines were no longer required, as the Court had categorically set time limits for the Governor in different instances. (The Supreme Court Observer’s summary of the Tamil Nadu governor’s judgement explains the timelines in tabular form. See here.)
Venugopal requested the Court to apply that judgement and dispose of the Kerala Governor’s case accordingly.
Counsel for the Governor: “We would like to show the differences”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Governor, disagreed and argued that the Tamil Nadu and Kerala cases were different. He sought time to explain the differences.
“Learned solicitor general, it is covered directly. I can show you the paragraphs!” Venugopal responded.
Attorney General R. Venkataramani also lent his weight to Mehta’s argument, saying the Union wished to “make the differences clear.”
Accepting their request, the Court scheduled the case to be heard next on 6 May 2025.