Kerala Urges SC to Reject Presidential Reference on Governor Assent Deadline

New Delhi: Kerala has informed the Supreme Court that the reference made by President Droupadi Murmu against the historic judgement that set a time limit for Governors and the President to act on bills passed by the legislature is irrelevant and legally untenable. In its affidavit, the state government demanded that the court either declare the reference invalid or return it without a reply.

On April 8, the Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling that mandated time limits within which the President and Governors must act on bills passed by state legislatures. This judgement came in the wake of increasing delays by constitutional authorities in granting assent to bills, especially in non-Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) ruled states.

Kerala cited the Supreme Court’s stance in the 1993 Cauvery water dispute case, where the Court had held that the President does not have the power to convert a reference into an appeal. The Court ruled that a Presidential reference can only be made on unresolved questions of law—not on matters where the Court has already delivered a binding judgement.

Kerala argued that the current reference effectively functions as an appeal made through the back door by the union government, which is constitutionally impermissible. Allowing such a maneuver, the state contended, would open the door to executive overreach and threaten judicial independence.

This issue is not unique to Kerala. Several non-BJP ruled states, including Tamil Nadu, Telangana, and Punjab, have raised concerns about Governors delaying or withholding assent to state legislation, leading to a constitutional deadlock. The recent Supreme Court judgement was seen as a vital step toward resolving these standoffs by reinforcing the accountability of Governors and the President in the legislative process.

Kerala also referenced the 2002 Gujarat election case, where the Court had made it clear that once a matter is adjudicated, no further response is required to a Presidential reference on the same issue.

Among the 14 questions raised by the President in the current reference, Questions 5 and 7 repeat the argument that there is no constitutional time limit for Governors to act on bills. Kerala pointed out that such an interpretation conveniently ignores the Court’s emphasis on the constitutional mandate to act "without delay"—a principle that underpins the essence of cooperative federalism.

The state emphasised that the first eleven of the President’s fourteen questions are directly related to the Tamil Nadu Governor’s conduct, which was already scrutinised and addressed by the Court. The reference, Kerala argued, appears to question even the legitimacy of that judgement.

Kerala stressed that under Article 143 of the Constitution, even the Supreme Court does not have the authority to revisit and reverse its own past decisions through a Presidential reference. It noted that the union government has not filed a review petition challenging the judgement, and this inaction itself signals that the verdict was accepted.

As such, Kerala has urged the Court to reject the reference outright, viewing it as an unconstitutional attempt to undermine a clear and binding verdict. The growing friction between Governors and elected state governments in non-BJP ruled states, the state warned, represents a serious challenge to federalism and democratic governance.