Kerala tells the Supreme Court the Presidential reference on Governor’s assent timelines is legally flawed, suppresses prior rulings, and misuses Article 143 to reopen settled constitutional questions.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The State of Kerala has raised a major constitutional debate by filing an application before the Supreme Court of India, urging it to reject the Presidential reference on the powers and timelines for Governors under Article 200 of the Constitution.
What Is the Presidential Reference About?
On May 13, 2025, President Droupadi Murmu made a reference to the Supreme Court under Article 143 of the Constitution, seeking clarity on 14 questions related to the powers of Governors and the President concerning assent to Bills passed by State legislatures. The queries center on Articles 200 and 201, which govern how a Governor or the President can act on State Bills.
The reference was prompted by growing concerns among States about the indefinite delays Governors have been causing in granting assent, or returning Bills.
Earlier in April 2025, the Supreme Court had ruled that the Governor cannot sit indefinitely on a Bill and must act “within a reasonable time”. For the President, the Court prescribed a timeline of three months to act on referred Bills under Article 201, with reasons required for any delay.
Kerala’s Objection
The State of Kerala’s application, filed through Advocate CK Sasi, challenges the maintainability of the reference itself. It alleges that the first 11 of the 14 queries raised by the President are already answered in three landmark judgments:
- State of Telangana v. Secretary to the Governor, 2023
- State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to the Governor, 2023
- State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu, 2025 INSC 481
According to the State of Kerala, the Presidential reference fails to disclose these authoritative decisions, especially the recent Tamil Nadu judgment, and thereby attempts to reopen already-settled constitutional issues.
“The reference suppresses the single important aspect, namely, that the first 11 out of the 14 queries raised are directly covered by a judgment of the Supreme Court… merely 1 month before the reference was made.”
– Kerala’s Application
Arguments
Kerala invokes Article 141 of the Constitution, which makes the law declared by the Supreme Court binding on all courts and authorities in India. The State asserts that since no review or curative petition has been filed against the Tamil Nadu judgment, the law laid down therein has attained finality.
The State further emphasizes that the President cannot use Article 143 to bypass or challenge a binding judgment. Citing the Cauvery Water Dispute judgment, Kerala argues that a Presidential reference is only maintainable when there is genuine doubt or ambiguity in the law, not when the law has already been conclusively interpreted by the Supreme Court.
“The Court cannot sit in appeal over its own judgments, nor can such a power be vested in it under Article 143.”
The Supreme Court’s Earlier Rulings on Articles 200 and 201
In a landmark judgment in April 2025, a Division Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan held:
- The Governor’s powers under Article 200 are subject to judicial review. Though Article 200 does not prescribe a specific time limit, inaction cannot be indefinite.
- The President’s powers under Article 201 must be exercised within three months of receiving the Bill. If delayed, reasons must be communicated to the concerned State.
These judgments aimed to protect the democratic process and prevent misuse of constitutional silence to stall legislation passed by elected assemblies.
“The President is required to take a decision on the Bills within a period of three months from the date on which such reference is received, and in case of any delay beyond this period, appropriate reasons would have to be recorded and conveyed to the concerned State,”
the judgment said.
While the Central Government has not yet publicly filed a detailed response, the reference itself argues that:
- Articles 200 and 201 do not prescribe any deadlines.
- The Supreme Court’s ruling effectively adds timelines not found in the Constitution.
- The idea of “deemed assent” due to inaction is not contemplated by the constitutional framework.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Article 200
