Kerala Seeks to Withdraw Governor Delay Petitions; Centre Cites Article 143 Reference

A view of the Supreme Court of India. | Photo Credit: Sushil Kumar Verma

Kerala Moves to Withdraw Key Petitions Amid Governor’s ‘Pocket Veto’ Debate, Center Objects; Article 143 Presidential Reference Looms Large

New Delhi, July 15, 2025: In yet another riveting chapter in the saga of India’s federal structure and constitutional checks and balances, the Supreme Court witnessed high courtroom drama on Monday when the State of Kerala sought permission to withdraw its two writ petitions challenging the prolonged inaction by the Governor on state bills. This development comes at a time when the contentious debate over “pocket veto” by Governors is already dominating national headlines.

The twist emerged during proceedings before a Bench comprising Justices P.S. Narasimha and A.S. Chandurkar in Courtroom No. 6 of the apex court. Senior Advocate K.K. Venugopal, appearing for Kerala, submitted that the State wished to withdraw both petitions, signaling that the relief sought had effectively been addressed by the Court in its landmark Tamil Nadu judgment earlier this year.

However, the move triggered immediate objections from the Union government, represented by Attorney General R. Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta. The Centre urged the Court not to allow the withdrawal, citing the imminent hearing of a Presidential Reference under Article 143 pertaining to similar questions of constitutional law. “Please wait and watch,” SG Mehta suggested, noting that the reference—forwarded by President Droupadi Murmu—seeks clarity on whether Governors can indefinitely withhold assent to bills and if such inaction amounts to an unconstitutional delay. The reference reportedly frames 14 significant questions on gubernatorial powers and legislative process.

Background: Genesis of the Dispute

Kerala’s petitions trace back to a 2023 standoff when Governor Arif Mohammed Khan withheld multiple bills, ranging from university administration to cooperative societies and local governance, for periods stretching from seven months to over two years. Frustrated by this delay, the State moved the Supreme Court, which on November 29, 2023, rebuked the Governor, emphasizing that “the power of the Governor cannot be utilized to pause the law-making exercise of the legislature.” The Court relied on principles from the Punjab Governor case to underscore its reasoning.

The controversy deepened in February 2024, when the President refused assent to four out of seven bills forwarded to her—without issuing a speaking order. Kerala argued that under Articles 200 and 201, the President is obliged to provide reasons for such decisions, prompting the second writ petition.

Tamil Nadu Judgment: The Turning Point

On April 8, 2025, the Supreme Court delivered a landmark verdict in the Tamil Nadu case, making it unequivocally clear that Governors cannot hold bills in limbo indefinitely. The Court prescribed strict timelines: Governors must either grant assent, return the bill, or reserve it for the President as soon as possible. Further, if the legislature reaffirms the bill, the Governor “must” give assent. This ruling effectively dismantled the notion of a “pocket veto,” which had been a persistent flashpoint between States and Raj Bhavans.

The Kerela Move: Pragmatism or Political Optics?

Kerala now seeks to withdraw its petitions, signaling reliance on the Tamil Nadu judgment for relief. “Why are My Lords hesitant to let the State withdraw the petitions?” Venugopal quipped during a light-hearted exchange in court, prompting laughter. SG Mehta retorted sharply, “Mr. Venugopal knows only clerks are charged,” in reference to costs.

Justice Narasimha reminded the courtroom of the dominant principle of litigation (dominus litis): if a litigant wishes to withdraw, the Court ordinarily cannot refuse—unless overriding public interest demands otherwise.

However, the Centre fears that withdrawal could dilute the urgency of the Article 143 reference, which seeks to establish a broader doctrine on gubernatorial powers. A lack of concrete test cases might render the reference “hypothetical,” undermining its significance. Historically, Article 143 opinions—though advisory—have shaped constitutional jurisprudence in cases like Berubari Union (1960), Kesavananda Bharati review, the NJAC reference, and even the Ram Janmabhoomi dispute (1993).

Key Constitutional Questions

The looming presidential reference reportedly asks:

• Can Governors delay assent without deciding on a bill indefinitely?
• Does such inaction amount to a violation of constitutional morality?
• What remedies can courts provide if States challenge these delays?
• Do such disputes strike at the heart of India’s federal architecture, making them matters of national, not merely state, concern?

Federalism vs. Centralisation

The Kerala episode underscores a recurring theme in Indian constitutional law: the tension between federal autonomy and central control. Earlier rulings—from Shamsher Singh (1974) to Nabam Rebia (2016)—have narrowed gubernatorial discretion, emphasizing that Governors function as constitutional heads, not political actors. The 2025 Tamil Nadu verdict went further, barring Governors from defeating legislative will through procedural tactics.

What Lies Ahead?

The Bench tentatively indicated that there is no apparent ground to prevent withdrawal but deferred the matter to next week—likely to review the scheduling of the Article 143 reference, which may soon be listed before a five-judge Bench for preliminary hearing.

As this high-stakes constitutional chess game unfolds, the immediate question is: Will the Supreme Court permit Kerala a “graceful exit,” or will it choose to tag the petitions with the presidential reference for a holistic adjudication? Either way, the outcome promises to redefine the contours of India’s legislative process, gubernatorial accountability, and the future of federalism.

For now, the country awaits the Supreme Court’s next move in what is shaping up to be one of the most consequential legal battles of the decade.