Kerala Governor’s Withholding of Bills | Day 6: Supreme Court allows state government to withdraw petition
Pendency of bills before the Governor of KeralaJudges: P.S. Narasimha J, A.S. Chandurkar J
On 25 July 2025, a Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and A.S. Chandurkar formally allowed the state of Kerala to withdraw its petition against former Governor Arif Mohammed Khan’s inaction in granting assent to the state Bills.
In the previous hearing, K.K. Venugopal, appearing for the Kerala government, had argued that the petition had become infructuous after the Court’s judgments in the Tamil Nadu and Punjab Governor cases. These had made it clear that Governors could not indefinitely delay assent to state bills. The presidential reference, currently being heard by the Court, he said, would clarify any other doubts that may remain.
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 with a similar petition.
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.
Issues
- Can the State of Kerala withdraw its petition when constitutional questions have been raised?
- Should the petition be retained and tagged with the pending Presidential Reference under Articles 143?
Kerala: “How can a withdrawal be tagged?”
Senior Advocate K.K. Venugopal, appearing for the state of Kerala, has been seeking a withdrawal of the petition since May this year. In the hearing on Friday, Attorney General R. Venkataramani submitted that Kerala was seeking the withdrawal because of the Court’s judgement in the Tamil Nadu Governor case.
Both Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta recommended that the petition be tagged with the Presidential Reference. They highlighted that pending petitions during the 1996 and 2001 references were tagged with the reference. (We’ve detailed all the Presidential References in our post here.)
“I am unable to understand the logic of this,” Venugopal lamented. “How can a withdrawal be tagged? The Constitution Bench would be surprised,” he exclaimed.
Bench: “He has the carriage of proceedings. What can we do?”
The Bench ultimately allowed the state government to withdraw its plea. “He [Venugopal] has the carriage of the proceedings. When he wants to withdraw, what can we do?” Justice Narasimha said.
The Attorney General hinted that there was “a string attached to the withdrawal.” Venugopal swiftly responded: “There is no string – the string is cut.”
Venugopal will represent the Kerala government before the five-judge Bench answering the presidential reference. During the first hearing before the Bench on 22 July, Venugopal had briefly mentioned that he would argue on the maintainability of the reference.