'11 Of 14 Queries Covered By TN Governor Case Judgment' : Kerala Objects To Maintainability Of President's Reference In Supreme Court

The State of Kerala has now filed an application in the Supreme Court questioning the maintainability of the reference made by the President under Article 143 over the timelines for grant of assent to bill. The State has asked for the Presidential Reference be returned unanswered. 

On July 22, the Supreme Court issued a notice to the Union Government and all state governments regarding the Presidential Reference made by President Droupadi Murmu concerning the powers of the Governor and the President under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution, respectively, regarding the power to assent to bills.

Last week, Senior Advocate KK Venugopal, for the State, had told the Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai,Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar that it is raising an issue with regards to the maintainability of the Reference in light of the judgment in the Tamil Nadu Governor's case.

The following grounds have been raised by the State of Kerala:

1. It is stated that the Reference is based on an "erroneous statement" as it says Article 200 "does not stipulate any time frame upon the Governor for the exercise of constitutional options under Article 200". 

State of Kerala says Article 200 stipulates a timeline with the use of words "as soon as possible" in the proviso and which has now been settled by three-judge bench in State of Telangana v. Secretary to her Excellency the Hon'ble Governor for the State of Telangana (2023), State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab (2023) and The State of Tamil Nadu v. The Governor of Tamil Nadu( 2025).

2. State of Kerala says 11 out of the 14 queries raised in the Reference are directly covered by the Tamil Nadu Governor judgment.

"The existence of the judgment is suppressed in this reference, on which ground alone the reference has to be rejected. If a frank disclosure had been made of the judgment in the Tamil Nadu case (supra), queries 1 to 11 would no longer be res integra, and in any event, the foundational event of the time line has already been decided in the Punjab and Telangana cases (supra). 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."

3. There is an attempt to use the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to overrule its own judgment, which is a serious misuse of Article 143.

4. Union Government has not filed review or curative petition against the Tamil Nadu Governor matter and therefore 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 President and the Council of Ministers have to act in aid of the Supreme Court under Article 144. Under the Constitution, this Court cannot sit in appeal over its own judgments, nor can such a power be vested in it by the President under Article 143."