New Delhi: The state of Kerala has moved an application before the Supreme Court urging the top court to return the reference made by the President under Article 143 of the Constitution.
Following the verdict in the Tamil Nadu Bills case, President Murmu, in May this year, had asked the top court as to whether timelines can be imposed on Governors to act on Bills in the absence of a constitutionally-prescribed time limit and to report its opinion on constitutional options available to a Governor when a Bill is presented to him under Article 200 of the Constitution.
In the application filed before the Supreme Court, Kerala sought a declaration that the Presidential reference is not maintainable and prayed for its return.
It said that the Presidential reference “suppresses” the single important aspect that the first 11 out of the 14 queries raised are directly covered by the apex court judgment in ‘The State of Tamil Nadu vs. The Governor of Tamil Nadu’ case.
“The existence of the judgment is suppressed in this reference, on which ground alone the reference has to be rejected,” Kerala’s application said.
It added that the “questions 1 to 11 are no longer res integra and the instant reference seeks to use the jurisdiction under Article 143 to invest in the Supreme Court an appellate jurisdiction to overrule its own judgment, which is wholly impermissible.”
The Centre has not filed any review or curative petition against the judgment delivered in the Tamil Nadu case and “has thus accepted the judgment”, contended Kerala’s application.
It sought a declaration that the Presidential reference is not maintainable and has been filed suppressing material facts; and prayed for its return unanswered.
On July 22, a 5-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai issued notices to the Centre and all state governments in the matter titled “In Re: Assent, Withholding or Reservation of Bills by the Governor and the President of India”.
The special Bench, also comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurka, also sought assistance of Attorney General of India R. Venkataramani, the highest law officer of the Centre in adjudication of the Presidential reference.
During the hearing, Senior advocate K.K. Venugopal, representing the state of Kerala, had raised objections regarding the maintainability of the proceedings.
Similarly, senior advocate P. Wilson, representing the state of Tamil Nadu, argued that the questions raised in the Presidential reference had already been settled by the apex court in Tamil Nadu Bills case and objected to its maintainability.
When Wilson submitted that the Presidential reference affected Tamil Nadu’s interests, the CJI Gavai-led Bench had remarked that the matter concerned not only Tamil Nadu but all states, and thus all of them needed to be heard.
In April 2025, a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court, using its inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, resolved a standoff between the Tamil Nadu government and Governor R.N. Ravi over the delay in granting assent to Bills passed by the Assembly.
It ruled that Governor Ravi’s refusal to approve 10 Bills in Tamil Nadu was both “illegal and arbitrary” and set a three-month deadline for Presidential and gubernatorial approval of Bills passed by the legislature for a second time.
“The President is required to take a decision on the Bills reserved for his consideration by the Governor within a period of three months from the date on which such reference is received,” said a Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan.
If there is no decision within this time frame, states are entitled to file writ petitions seeking a writ of mandamus against the President, the Justice Pardiwala-led Bench clarified.
The apex court used its extraordinary powers for the purpose of declaring the 10 withheld Bills as deemed to have been assented to on the date when they were presented to the Governor after being reconsidered by the state legislature.
The top court held that once a Bill is returned, re-passed by the legislature, and presented again to the Governor, it is not open for the Governor to reserve it for the President’s consideration.
The judgment, apparently, brought Presidential actions under judicial review by favouring a three-month deadline for granting assent to Bills, promoting the President to make a reference under Article 143 of the Constitution.
Article 143 provides that the President may invoke the advisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court on matters of public importance or constitutional interpretation.
(IANS)
