New Delhi: The Kerala government on Monday urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the presidential reference that has sought clarification on timelines set for the President and the Governor to act on bills presented for their consent, alleging the reference seeks to mislead the court into setting aside its own judgment in the Tamil Nadu Governor case.
In an application moved a day before the hearing in the pending reference proceedings on Tuesday, the Kerala government pointed out that the apex court’s April 8 judgment in the Tamil Nadu Governor case has already addressed in detail the questions raised in the presidential reference in May. The state alleged that the presidential reference has “supressed” this material fact.
The Supreme Court in the Tamil Nadu v Governor case set the timelines for the Governor and President to act on the bills presented for their consent within three months. Pointing out that the Centre has not filed a review petition against the April 8 verdict, establishing it as a settled law, the Kerala government argued that if the Union government wanted to challenge the top court judgment, it should have filed a review or a curative plea in the Supreme Court, and not take the route of presidential reference.
The presidential reference cannot “obliquely” challenge a ruling of the court, which amounts to “serious misuse” of Article 143 under which reference has been sought, the state argued.
{{/usCountry}}The presidential reference cannot “obliquely” challenge a ruling of the court, which amounts to “serious misuse” of Article 143 under which reference has been sought, the state argued.
{{/usCountry}}Noting that the presidential reference makes no reference to the April 8 judgment, the application said: “The reference loses its legitimacy and seeks to mislead the court into setting aside its own judgment, the existence of which, as mentioned, has been suppressed. The reference therefore deserves to be returned unanswered.”
The application, filed through advocate CK Sasi, said the President can only refer questions to the Supreme Court under its advisory jurisdiction of Article 143 of the Constitution if they had not been decided by the top court.
“The instant reference is being used as a device to obtain decisions on these vital issues, without disclosing and by suppressing the final findings already rendered on these issues by this Hon’ble Court, and to get this Hon’ble Court to deliver inconsistent judgments on the issue of timeframe under Article 200, which is not res integra (an untouched matter),” it added.
Article 200 makes the governor’s assent mandatory for clearing the bills passed by the state legislature. The first proviso to Article 200 states that the governor may “as soon as possible after the presentation” of the bill for assent, return the bill if it is not a money bill together with a message for reconsideration to the House or Houses of the state legislature.
The April 8 verdict, passed on a petition by Tamil Nadu challenging withholding of consent on 10 crucial bills, termed the governor’s withholding of sanction “illegal”. The court exercising its extraordinary power under Article 142 declared “deemed” assent to the bills.
The Kerala application said the foundation of the presidential reference is that Article 200 does not stipulate any timeframe upon the governor for the exercise of his powers and functions thereunder.
“This is amazing, and it is difficult to believe that the Council of Ministers, in advising the President, have not even cared to read the proviso to Article 200 which states that the Governor shall act ‘as soon as possible after the presentation to him of the Bill for assent’. That there is a timeline in Article 200 stands settled by no less than three separate judgments of this Court,” the application said.
It referred to past decisions of the top court in state of Telangana v Governor case and state of Punjab v Governor case, both decided in 2023, which affirmed that action by the governor on bills sent for consideration should be done “as soon as possible”.
“If the reference itself is based on an erroneous statement, the entirety of the reference, which mainly relates to the time factor, should stand rejected,” Kerala argued, adding: “The first 11 out of the 14 queries raised (in the reference) are directly covered by a judgment of the Supreme Court in the State of TN v Governor decision (of April 8, 2025), merely one month before the reference was made on May 13. The existence of the judgment is suppressed in this reference, on which ground alone the reference has to be rejected.”
A five-judge Constitution bench took up the reference on July 22 and issued notices to Centre and state governments. The court had posted the matter for July 29 to fix timelines for hearing the matter in August.
Incidentally, the Kerala government had last week withdrawn its appeal challenging the governor’s inaction to clear eight bills pending for a period varying between one to three years in the southern state.
Later in the day, the Tamil Nadu government filed an application in the same proceedings urging the top court to return the May 13 Presidential Reference as “not maintainable,” calling it an attempt to reopen settled constitutional law. The state argued that no new “substantial question of law” arises under Article 143(1), rendering the reference an “appeal in disguise” and liable to be returned unanswered.