Kerala Governor’s Withholding of Bills | Day 4: Kerala Government seeks to withdraw petition, Counsel for Governor opposes
Pendency of bills before the Governor of KeralaJudges: P.S. Narasimha J, Joymalya Bagchi J
Today, a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court, briefly heard the state of Kerala’s challenge to Governor Arif Mohammed Khan’s prolonged withholding of eight bills passed by the State Legislature.
In the previous hearing, Senior Advocate K.K. Venugopal, appearing for the Kerala Government, had argued that the recent decision on the Tamil Nadu Governor’s “illegal” withholding of bills squarely applied here. Attorney General R. Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Governor, had argued that the Kerala case was starkly different and had sought extra time to explain why.
Today, in an unexpected turn, Venugopal sought to withdraw the case.
Background
On 1 November 2023, the State of Kerala filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the Governor of Kerala’s prolonged inaction on eight bills passed by the State legislature and pending his assent under Article 200. The State called the Governor’s delay a threat to the “basic foundations of our Constitution.” The petition was filed a day after Tamil Nadu approached the top court.
The state government’s petition argued that since the legislature had already deliberated on the “public interest” involved in the Bills, the Governor should either grant assent or return them within a reasonable time. Indefinite pendency of the Bills by the Governor, it said, violated Article 14 as it was manifestly arbitrary. It also argued that the delay violated Article 21, as the bills in question are “welfare legislations.”
The core issues in this case mirror those raised in two other decided cases: State of Tamil Nadu v Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025), and State of Punjab v Principal Secretary to the Governor (2023). A case from Telangana—State of Telangana v Secretary to her Excellency, the Governor for State of Telangana—is still pending at the top court.
Venugopal: “How can you oppose a withdrawal?”
Venugopal argued that the petition was infructuous and sought to withdraw it. Mehta opposed this request. He argued that the case was sensitive, concerning substantial questions of law and therefore cannot be “filed lightly or withdrawn lightly.” Venkataramani joined Mehta in his stance, explaining that their team is working on the issues to be discussed in the case.
“How can you oppose a withdrawal?” Venugopal exclaimed. “The Attorney General and Solicitor General are opposing a withdrawal—strangest sights in the Supreme Court,” he said.
Justice P.S. Narasimha assured Venugopal that he was entitled to withdraw the petition. But as Mehta and Venkataramani had asked for time, they agreed to hear the case next Tuesday, on (13 May 2025)