Today, On 25th July, Supreme Court, stating “Under Article 32 Plea Is Permitted,” allows Kerala to withdraw petition challenging Governor’s inaction, despite Centre’s suggestion to refer the matter to a larger bench due to pending constitutional questions.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court heard the Kerala Government’s 2023 petition where the State had challenged the Governor for not giving timely approval to several Bills passed by the Kerala Legislative Assembly.
The Kerala Government had approached the Court under Article 32 of the Constitution.
The main issue raised in the petition was that the Governor had delayed his assent for a long time, even though Article 200 of the Constitution says that the Governor must act on Bills within a reasonable period.
Also Read: Kerala Declines Union Government’s Rs 5,000 Crore Loan Offer Amid Financial Crisis
According to the State, this delay had blocked important laws and affected the constitutional system by weakening the powers of the elected government.
When the matter came up before the Supreme Court, Senior Advocate K.K. Venugopal, representing the Kerala Government, said,
“I hope this matter can be heard now. I want to withdraw it.”
At this point, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, said,
“This could be tagged before the five‑judge bench.”
However, Venugopal clearly replied,
“No I only wish to withdraw.”
Attorney General R. Venkataramani also shared his view on the situation.
He said,
“This isn’t a simple withdrawal. The Tamil Nadu judgment may need reference to a larger bench, and there’s also a pending presidential reference.”
Then, Justice P.S. Narasimha observed,
“If they are asking us to dispose of it, that’s one thing but here they seek withdrawal.”
After hearing all sides, the Court allowed the State of Kerala to take back its petition.
The bench said in its order,
“The petition under Article 32 and the connected SLP are permitted to be withdrawn.”
In 2023, the State approached the Supreme Court by filing a writ petition challenging the Governor’s prolonged inaction on several Bills related to amendments in laws governing State Universities and Cooperative Societies.
These Bills had been pending with the Governor for periods ranging from 7 to 24 months. After the writ was filed and notice was issued by the Court on November 20, 2023, the Governor subsequently referred seven of these Bills to the President.
The Supreme Court, On November 29, 2023, the criticised the Governor for this delay. Then Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud remarked that “the power of the Governor cannot be utilised to pause the law-making exercise of the legislature.”
He referred to the verdict delivered on November 23, 2023, in the case concerning the Punjab Governor, where a three-judge bench had clarified that a Governor does not possess veto powers to indefinitely withhold assent to Bills.
The President, On February 29, 2024, granted assent to three of the seven Bills, but withheld assent for the remaining four. The State objected to this decision, arguing that the President did not provide any reasons for rejecting those four Bills.
In March 2024, the State filed a fresh writ petition before the Supreme Court, challenging both the Governor’s decision to refer the Bills to the President and the President’s action of withholding assent.
However, this new plea was not listed for hearing today. In an earlier proceeding, both the Attorney General and the Solicitor General had taken the position that the Tamil Nadu Governor case has no direct bearing on the current matter.
Case Title: The State of Kerala & Anr. v. Hon’ble Governor for State of Kerala & Ors. , W.P.(C) No. 1264/2023, And The State of Kerala & Anr. v. P.V. Jeevesh & Ors. , Diary No. 46812/2023
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
