Presidential reference hides binding rulings on Governors: Kerala tells SC

State of Kerala has urged the Supreme Court to reject Presidential reference on Governors' assent timelines, saying it suppresses key rulings and misuses Article 143 to reopen already settled issues

The state of Kerala has filed an application in the Supreme Court, challenging the Presidential reference that seeks the court’s opinion on the time limits for Governors and the President to assent to Bills passed by state legislatures, Bar and Bench reported. 

Advocate of the Kerala state has asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the reference without answering the questions raised, arguing that the matter has already been settled by previous rulings of the court. The state said, the reference hides key constitutional judgments, making it legally weak and misleading. 

The application was filed in response to a reference made by the President under Article 143 of the Constitution.   

 

Kerala’s argument: Reference is not maintainable

The Presidential reference seeks the Supreme Court’s opinion on 14 key issues concerning the powers of Governors under Article 200 and the President under Article 201. Kerala has strongly opposed this, calling the entire basis of the reference “flawed”. 

The state of Kerala objected especially to the suggestion that Article 200 does not specify any deadline for a Governor to act on a Bill. “This is amazing,” the application states, “…and it is difficult to believe that the Council of Ministers, in advising the Hon’ble President, have not even cared to read the proviso to Article 200 which states that the Governor shall act ‘as soon as possible after the presentation to him of the Bill for assent’.”

  Kerala said that the issues raised have already been clarified by the Supreme Court in three important cases:

* State of Telangana vs Secretary to the Governor of Telangana

* State of Punjab vs Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab

* State of Tamil Nadu vs The Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025 INSC 481)

 

According to the application, 11 out of the 14 questions raised in the reference were directly settled in the Tamil Nadu case, which was delivered just one month before the reference was made. Kerala argued that this judgment was not even mentioned in the reference — a serious omission, the news report said.

 

‘Court cannot be misled or asked to overrule itself’

Kerala state mentioned that the omission of these judgments is a way to mislead the top court into reviewing and possibly overruling its own decisions, something that cannot be done through a Presidential reference. 

“The present reference suppresses the single important aspect,” Kerala said, “…that the first 11 queries are directly covered by a judgment of the Supreme Court… the existence of the judgment is suppressed in this reference.” 

The state also said that the Union government never challenged the Tamil Nadu ruling by filing a review or curative petition. Therefore, the verdict is final under Article 141 and cannot be questioned again through a different route.   

 

Reference misuses presidential power, Kerala alleges

Calling the reference “a serious misuse” of Article 143, Kerala stated that the top court cannot act as an appellate authority over its own settled judgments. It also said that the President cannot use Article 143 to indirectly reopen legal questions that have already been answered, the news report said.

 

What the Supreme Court had held earlier

In April 2025, a Supreme Court Bench ruled that the Governor’s inaction under Article 200 was subject to judicial review. It said that while Article 200 does not mention a deadline, the Governor must act “within a reasonable time” and not stall the democratic process. 

On the President’s powers under Article 201, the court ruled that decisions must be made within three months. If there is any delay, the reasons must be given to the concerned state. 

Following this, President Droupadi Murmu sent a reference to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Constitution does not allow courts to set such deadlines or suggest “deemed assent” in case of delays. 

Kerala, however, said that the Court’s rulings are final and that the President’s reference is both unnecessary and unconstitutional.