Kerala Seeks To Withdraw Supreme Court Case Against Governor Withholding Assent

Supreme Court

The Kerala government on Tuesday told the Supreme Court that it intends to withdraw two of its own petitions challenging Governor Arif Mohammed Khan’s delay and refusal to give assent to state-passed Bills.

The Union government, however, opposed the state’s request, prompting a brief adjournment until May 13.

Background Of The Disputes

Kerala had filed its first petition in 2023, alleging that Governor Khan held up eight Bills for periods extending up to 23 months without explanation. A second petition, lodged in 2024, challenged the Governor’s decision to refer four of the seven outstanding Bills to President Droupadi Murmu, who then withheld assent.

In an earlier hearing on April 22, senior advocate K.K. Venugopal, appearing for Kerala, told the Court that a recent Supreme Court ruling on a similar dispute in Tamil Nadu had resolved the key issue:

“Both petitions are covered by the recent judgment (in Tamil Nadu Governor’s case) … on what is the time limit after reference to the President, that is held to be three months. No other question arises here.”

State Moves To Withdraw Petitions

Venugopal informed a bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi that, following the Governor’s referral of the disputed Bills to the President, the suits were effectively dead in the water.

“Both the petitions are infructuous. We will be withdrawing both of them,” he announced, indicating that the state no longer saw a point in pursuing the challenges.

Centre Objects To Hasty Withdrawal

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, arguing on behalf of the Union, urged the Court to pause before allowing Kerala to discontinue its appeals. He maintained that the constitutional questions raised—concerning the extent of the Governor’s and President’s discretion—merited adjudication rather than an abrupt exit.

“These are constitutional issues. It cannot be filed lightly and withdrawn lightly. We are working on the issues involved,” Mehta stressed.

Expressing surprise at the government’s stance, Venugopal retorted, “How can he say so? Both the Attorney General and Solicitor General opposing a withdrawal is strange.”

Mehta countered with a reminder of the petitions’ gravity, “When a person of your stature withdraws, even withdrawal has to be taken seriously.”

Supreme Court’s Interim Ruling

The bench acknowledged Kerala’s right to withdraw its own litigation but recognized the Centre’s plea for additional time to study the implications.

“Of course, we realise you (Kerala) are entitled to withdraw,” the Court observed as it adjourned the matter to May 13 to allow all parties to prepare their arguments.

What Lies Ahead

By May 13, the Supreme Court will decide whether to grant Kerala’s request to dismiss its petitions or to allow the Centre to press on with its challenge. The key issues include:

The timeframe within which the Governor must act on state Bills.

The President’s window for deciding on a Governor’s reference.

The broader balance of power between state legislatures, governors, and the Union in law-making.

How the Court resolves these questions could have lasting ramifications for the relationship between state governments, their governors, and the Centre, particularly in instances where Bills are stalled at the constitutional lookout.