Kerala opposes maintainability of presidential reference on SC timeline verdict

The state argued that the Supreme Court’s past decisions cover the issue and those cannot be overruled in a reference proceeding

The Kerala government has opposed the maintainability of the presidential reference, questioning the April 8 Supreme Court verdict that laid down a timeline for the president and governors to decide on state bills. It argued that the court’s past decisions cover the issue and those cannot be overruled in a reference proceeding.

The Kerala government moved an application in the reference proceeding ahead of the hearing of the case on Tuesday. (AFP)

In May, President Droupadi Murmu exercised a rare constitutional provision and sought the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion on 14 questions to settle the law on whether the president and governors need to follow timelines on state bills referred for consent when the Constitution does not prescribe it.

The April 8 order struck down Tamil Nadu governor RN Ravi’s move to reserve 10 re-enacted bills for presidential assent after withholding their approval. The court said if a governor withholds assent or reserves a bill for the president’s consideration, this must be done within three months of its presentation. It added that a governor must grant assent “forthwith” or within a month if a state legislature re-enacts an identical bill.

The court said the president must decide within three months of receiving a bill from a governor, as it laid down such a timeline for the first time. It asked that the president’s office convey reasons to the concerned state if there is any delay beyond this period.

The court used its extraordinary powers under the Constitution’s Article 142. It called the withholding of consent on the bills “illegal”. The court said that the bills would be “deemed” to have been assented to.

The Kerala government moved an application in the reference proceeding ahead of the hearing of the case on Tuesday. It cited the absence of a review petition challenging the April 8 decision. It argued that in such a scenario, the reference cannot “obliquely” challenge a ruling of the court, which amounts to “serious misuse” of Article 143 under which the reference has been sought.

The state government said that the reference makes no mention of the April 8 judgment. “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 reference is being used as a device to obtain decisions on vital issues, without disclosing and by suppressing the final findings already rendered on these issues, and to get to deliver inconsistent judgments on the issue of time frame under Article 200, which is not res integra.

The state submitted that the foundation of the reference is that Article 200 does not stipulate any time frame for the governor to exercise 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’.”

The application said the Supreme Court’s three judgments settle the timeline under Article 200. It added that they affirmed that action 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,” the state said.