Kerala Challenges Presidential Reference On Governor's Assent Deadlines In Supreme Court

The Kerala government has mounted a strong challenge against a Presidential reference submitted to the Supreme Court concerning time limits for Governors when deciding on state legislation. The state has formally requested the apex court to dismiss the reference, arguing it lacks legal foundation and attempts to circumvent established judicial precedents.

In its detailed submission to the court, Kerala characterized the Presidential reference as legally flawed and "not maintainable," citing numerous procedural and substantive deficiencies. The state government contends that the reference represents an improper attempt to challenge settled constitutional law through indirect means.

The crux of Kerala's opposition centers on the argument that the majority of issues raised in the Presidential reference have already been conclusively determined by the Supreme Court. Specifically, the state maintains that eleven of the fourteen questions posed in the reference were definitively addressed in the landmark Tamil Nadu Government versus Governor case.

Kerala emphasized that since the Union Government chose not to file any review petition or curative petition challenging that previous Supreme Court verdict, the Centre has implicitly accepted the court's ruling as final. The state argued that this acceptance makes the current reference an inappropriate mechanism for revisiting those settled issues.

The state government stressed that the Tamil Nadu versus Governor judgment has achieved legal finality under Article 141 of the Constitution, which makes Supreme Court decisions binding on all courts and authorities. Kerala maintained that this finality cannot be undermined through the current Presidential reference process.

Kerala accused the Union Government of employing the reference mechanism as a strategic device to reopen constitutional questions that have already been authoritatively resolved. The state alleged that the Centre failed to disclose to the court that these matters had previously been adjudicated, suggesting a lack of transparency in the reference process.

Invoking Article 144 of the Constitution, Kerala argued that both the President and the Council of Ministers have a constitutional obligation to support and assist the Supreme Court's functioning. The state contended that attempting to overturn established judgments through indirect means violates this constitutional duty.

The state specifically contested claims made in the Presidential reference regarding Article 200 of the Constitution. Kerala argued that the reference incorrectly suggests that this constitutional provision fails to establish clear timelines for gubernatorial action on state bills, when the Supreme Court has already provided definitive interpretation on this matter.

Kerala's submission detailed several serious concerns about the reference, including allegations of suppressing relevant judicial precedents, misinterpreting constitutional provisions, and lacking transparency about the existence of prior court rulings on the same issues.

The state urged the Supreme Court to return the Presidential reference without providing answers, arguing that the court cannot review its own previous decisions. Kerala emphasized that Article 143, which governs Presidential references, does not empower the President to seek judicial reconsideration of established Supreme Court judgments.

Kerala further argued that even if a few questions in the reference might be novel, the fundamentally flawed foundation of the entire reference negates any obligation for the court to address any portion of it. The state maintained that the presence of two or three potentially new questions cannot legitimize a reference that primarily seeks to overturn existing judicial decisions.

The case highlights ongoing tensions between state governments and the Centre regarding the role and powers of Governors, particularly concerning their discretionary authority over state legislation and the timeline within which such decisions must be made.