SC to consider if its ruling on governors applies to Kerala
A bench of justices PS Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi posted the Kerala government’s petition on May 6
A recent landmark Supreme Court judgment regulating the powers of governors to grant assent on bills will not apply to Kerala because the facts of the two cases are different, the Centre told the top court on Tuesday, even as a two-judge bench agreed to examine whether the April 8 verdict had any bearing on the Kerala government’s petition against the governor.
Kerala first approached the top court in 2023 against the governor. A bench of justices PS Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi posted the Kerala government’s petition on May 6.
“We will look into that judgement and see whether issues raised here are covered,” the bench said when attorney general R Venkataramani and solicitor general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre and the governor’s office, respectively, said the recent judgement delivered by a bench headed by justice J B Pardiwala did not cover the issues raised by the Kerala government.
Venkataramani and Mehta told the court that they were still examining the Tamil Nadu judgment. “On facts, this case (filed by Kerala) is essentially different.We need time to make our position clear,” Venkataramani said.
Mehta told the court, “The Kerala case is not covered by the April 8 judgment. I am examining the judgment but on certain aspects we will need court’s assistance.”
Kerala, represented by former attorney general KK Venugopal, said that all the questions raised by the state were addressed in the Tamil Nadu case. “The issue we have raised is what is the time limit for consideration of reference of bills sent by state to governor. That is now held to be 3 months. The court will have to innovate based on this judgment,” he said.
On April 8, the Supreme Court pulled up Tamil Nadu governor RN Ravi for attempting to thwart the will of an elected legislature, declared his decision to reserve 10 re-passed bills for presidential assent as “illegal”, and laid down timelines to curb inaction by governors across the country, in a landmark judgment that reasserted constitutional discipline, curtailed gubernatorial overreach, and reiterated India’s federalism.
Calling out what it described as a “growing and dangerous” trend of governors creating political roadblocks to frustrate state governments, a bench of justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan underlined that governors must function within the four corners of the Constitution and not derail the democratic will of the people expressed through their elected representatives.
It ruled that the 10 bills — re-passed by the Tamil Nadu assembly after initially being withheld — were deemed to have received the governor’s assent on the day they were returned to him, setting aside any contrary action taken subsequently.
The Kerala government approached the top court in 2023 alleging that the governor was sitting on eight bills -- for between seven months and almost two years. The state said that such action by the governor was detrimental for the smooth functioning of the government and defeated the rights of the people.
In November 2023, notice was issued on the state’s petition, after which the governor referred seven bills to the President. In a subsequent hearing, the bench led by former CJI DY Chandrachud criticised the then Kerala governor Arif Mohammed Khan for sitting on the bills for nearly two years.
On February 29, 2024, the President withheld assent on four bills – the University Laws (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 2021, the Kerala Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Bill, 2022, the University Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2022, and the University Laws (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill, 2022. Three bills were approved by the President.
Challenging the reference to the President and the President’s refusal to grant assent to the bills, the state filed yet another petition in 2024, on which notice was issued by the Supreme Court in July 2024.
