Kerala, the center of withdrawal of lawsuit against the governor after SC's centre is withdrawn after TN judgment

The view of the Supreme Court of India in New Delhi. File Photos | Photo Source: PTI

Kerala insisted on the case against the governor’s delay in key bills on Tuesday (May 6, 2025), saying the April 8 court required the governor and president to decide on pending state bills within up to three months and settled the law.

Also read: TN judgment does not apply to Kerala, Centre tells SC

However, the Centre remains firm and refuses to let go of the Kerala case and says the court should indeed hear it. The coalition government believes that the case in Kerala is different from that in Tamil Nadu.

Appearing before Justice PS Narasimha and Deputy Attorney General Tushar Mehta, for the Centre, he sought more time to dig into the key constitutional issues raised by Kerala. Mr Mehta urged the case to be adjourned until next Tuesday.

Kerala's senior advocate KK Venugopal questioned whether the centre had a say in the state's choice to withdraw the case. He said the petition became uncomfortable as the Tamil Nadu verdict would apply to Kerala. Mr Venugopal proposed that the court had ruled on the president and the governor.

“We will withdraw the petition,” Mr Venugopal stressed. He said it was “very strange” that the center opposed the state's exclusive withdrawal of its case.

Mr Mehta insists that a state cannot “lightly” file a petition to the governor and withdraw it lightly. He raised: “We are dealing with the issues involved.”

Judge Narasimha said the court realized the state had the right to withdraw the case but agreed to post it for further hearing on Tuesday.

At a hearing in April, Attorney General R. Venkataramani and Mr Mehta told the Supreme Court that the facts in Tamil Nadu oppose delays caused by its Governor RN Ravi to clear 10 re-closed bills did not “cover” Kerala. Mr Mehta said the government is still studying the verdict in the Tamil Nadu governor’s case and seeking an adjournment.

Mr Venkataramani has argued that the difference in cases in the two states is “basically factual”.

Mr Venugopal and advocate CK Sasi also said for Kerala that the maximum three-month deadline set by the Supreme Court in its April 8 judgment against the governor and president is to decide whether to approve consent to the bill.

The senior lawyer once said the April 8 verdict was a judicial response to a challenging sense of justice that the governor has increasingly adopted. The only thing to do is apply the judgment to cases in Kerala.

On April 8, a judgment made by Judges JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan interprets Article 200 of the Constitution, which relates to the bill granted by state legislators to the state legislature. The verdict ruled that the governor had a maximum of one month to deny aid and advice from the state cabinet. If he decides to refuse contrary to the cabinet's advice, he will have up to three months to return to the bill and specify his reasons. The governor has three months of fees to retain a bill for the president's consideration of the national cabinet recommendations. The governor “must” grant a bill re-proposed under Section 200 for up to one month. The court warned that the governor failed to comply with the timetable for any failure to invite judicial review.

Kerala's case against the governor goes back over two years. At a hearing on November 20, 2023, Mr Venugopal said that eight to 23 months with the governor were pending eight to 23 months. The governor then agreed to a bill and handed over the remaining seven to the president.