Presidential reference on timelines for Governors suppresses binding judgments: Kerala to Supreme Court

The State of Kerala has filed an application before the Supreme Court urging it to declare the Presidential reference on deadlines for Governors to assent to bills passed by state legislatures as not maintainable, and to return the reference unanswered. .The application filed in response to the reference made under Article 143 of the Constitution challenges its maintainability on multiple legal grounds, including the “suppression” of binding constitutional judgments..The Presidential reference seeks the opinion of the Supreme Court on 14 issues concerning the powers of Governors under Article 200 and the powers of the President under Article 201 of the Constitution. Kerala states that the very foundation of the reference is flawed.“The foundation of the reference is that Article 200 does not stipulate any timeframe upon the Governor for the exercise of his powers and functions thereunder...This statement is repeated in queries 5 and 7 of the reference. This is amazing, 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’.”.The application, filed through Advocate CK Sasi, states that this issue is no longer open to interpretation. Kerala points to three separate Constitution Bench and Division Bench judgments which, it argues, have conclusively interpreted Article 200 and its timelines:The State of Telangana v. Secretary to Her Excellency the Hon’ble Governor for the State of Telangana, WP(C) 333 of 2023State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab, WP(C) No. 1224 of 2023The State of Tamil Nadu v. The Governor of Tamil Nadu, 2025 INSC 481“The present 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 in The State of Tamil Nadu v. The Governor of Tamil Nadu, 2025 INSC 481, delivered on 08.04.2025, merely 1 month before the reference was made on 13.05.2025. The existence of the judgment is suppressed in this reference, on which ground alone the reference has to be rejected.”.Kerala submits that if a frank disclosure had been made of the Tamil Nadu case, the first 11 queries would no longer be up for debate. “These queries 1 to 11 directly require the Supreme Court to overrule the findings in the judgment in the Tamil Nadu case (supra) and the other two cases, without letting the Court know that in fact, its exercise would result in overruling its own judgments, a power which is not available to the Supreme Court.”.Kerala notes that the Union of India has not filed any review or curative petition against the Tamil Nadu ruling and, therefore, must be deemed to have accepted it. “The judgment, having not been assailed or set aside in any validly constituted proceedings, has attained finality and is binding on all concerned under Article 141, and cannot be challenged obliquely in collateral proceedings such as in the instant reference.”The application goes on to state that the Court cannot sit in appeal over its own judgments, nor can such a power be vested in it by the President under Article 143..Calling the reference “a serious misuse of the power under Article 143,” the State submits:“It is submitted that in view of the serious lacunae in the reference as pointed above, and the failure to mention that it really seeks to overrule undisclosed judgments of the Supreme Court, and by misinterpreting Article 200, by misstating that no timeline has been fixed by Article 200, the reference loses its legitimacy and seeks to mislead the Court into setting aside its own judgment, the existence of which, as mentioned, has been suppressed. The reference therefore deserves to be returned unanswered.”.The application also refers to paragraph 85 of the Cauvery judgment, stating:“When this Court in its adjudicatory jurisdiction pronounces its authoritative opinion on a question of law, it cannot be said that there is any doubt about the question of law or the same is res integra so as to require the President to know what the true position of law on the question is.”.This application comes soon after a Constitution Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar issued formal notice to the Central government and all the states in the Presidential reference case on whether the Court can lay down timelines and procedures for the President and Governors to consider Bills passed by state legislatures..The top court had in April prescribed timelines for the President and the Governor to decide on Bills and also held that the Governor’s inaction under Article 200 was subject to judicial review. The Court ruled that the absence of a time limit under Article 200 could not be interpreted to allow indefinite delay.The Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan held that the Governor must act within a reasonable time and that constitutional silence could not be used to stall the democratic process.With regard to the President’s powers under Article 201, the Court had held that her decision-making is not beyond judicial scrutiny and must occur within three months. If there is any delay beyond that period, reasons must be recorded and communicated to the concerned State.“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..Following the ruling, President Murmu referred fourteen questions to the Supreme Court, raising constitutional concerns about the Court’s interpretation of Articles 200 and 201. The reference argued that neither Article contains any express provision empowering the Court to prescribe deadlines, and that the notion of “deemed assent” in the event of delay is not contemplated by the Constitution.