Today, On 6th May, Kerala decides to withdraw petitions in the Governor inaction case, sparking opposition from the Centre. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta strongly objected to the move, representing the Central government before the Supreme Court.
New Delhi: The Kerala government informed the Supreme Court on Tuesday of its intention to retract two petitions previously filed against the Governor concerning the withholding of assent to state legislature-approved bills.
Representing the Kerala government, Senior Advocate and former Attorney General KK Venugopal appeared before Justices PS Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi, requesting permission for the withdrawal.
Venugopal stated,
“Both the petitions are infructuous. We will be withdrawing both of them.”
Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, representing the Central government, voiced opposition to the withdrawal, arguing,
“These are constitutional issues. It cannot be filed lightly and withdrawn lightly. We are working on the issues involved.”
Venugopal responded,
“How can he say so? Both Attorney General and Solicitor General opposing a withdrawal is strange.”
SG Mehta replied,
“When a person of your stature withdraws even withdrawal has to be taken seriously.”
The court then adjourned the proceedings to May 13, as requested by both parties.
The Bench remarked while adjourning the case,
“Of course, we realise you (Kerala) are entitled to withdraw.”
In 2023, the initial petition was submitted, addressing delays by then-Kerala Governor Arif Mohammed Khan in approving Bills passed by the State Legislature. That November, the State informed the Supreme Court that eight Bills had been awaiting the Governor’s assent for periods ranging from seven to twenty-three months.
A second petition was filed in 2024, challenging President Droupadi Murmu’s decision to withhold assent from four of the seven bills referred to her by State Governor Arif Mohammed Khan in 2023.
Also Read: Supreme Court Steps In: Tamil Nadu vs. Governor Verdict Sparks Judicial Overreach Debate
During the previous hearing on April 22, the State argued that the Supreme Court’s recent ruling regarding the Tamil Nadu Governor would apply to the case involving allegations of undue delay by the Kerala Governor in clearing State Bills.
Venugopal had argued,
“Both petitions are covered by recent judgment (in Tamil Nadu Governor’s case) … on what is time limit after reference to President, that is held to be 3 months. No other question arises here.”
Also Read: ‘Governor Unfit for His Post’: Stalin’s Sharp Rebuke Over Tamil Anthem Controversy
SG Tushar Mehta disagreed, stating his intention to demonstrate the differences between the current case and the Tamil Nadu Governor’s case.
SG Mehta had said then,
“It is not covered my lord,”
Attorney General R Venkataramani also supported SG Mehta’s viewpoint.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
