&w=3840&q=100)
Presidential reference hides binding rulings on Governors: Kerala tells SC
Rimjhim Singh New Delhi
The state of Kerala has filed an application in the Supreme Court, challenging the Presidential reference that seeks the court's opinion on the time limits for Governors and the President to assent to Bills passed by state legislatures, Bar and Bench reported.
Advocate of the Kerala state has asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the reference without answering the questions raised, arguing that the matter has already been settled by previous rulings of the court. The state said, the reference hides key constitutional judgments, making it legally weak and misleading.
Kerala's argument: Reference is not maintainable
The Presidential reference seeks the Supreme Court's opinion on 14 key issues concerning the powers of Governors under Article 200 and the President under Article 201. Kerala has strongly opposed this, calling the entire basis of the reference 'flawed'.
The state of Kerala objected especially to the suggestion that Article 200 does not specify any deadline for a Governor to act on a Bill. 'This is amazing,' the application states, '…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'.'
Kerala said that the issues raised have already been clarified by the Supreme Court in three important cases:
* State of Telangana vs Secretary to the Governor of Telangana
* State of Punjab vs Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab
* State of Tamil Nadu vs The Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025 INSC 481)
According to the application, 11 out of the 14 questions raised in the reference were directly settled in the Tamil Nadu case, which was delivered just one month before the reference was made. Kerala argued that this judgment was not even mentioned in the reference — a serious omission, the news report said.
'Court cannot be misled or asked to overrule itself'
Kerala state mentioned that the omission of these judgments is a way to mislead the top court into reviewing and possibly overruling its own decisions, something that cannot be done through a Presidential reference.
'The present reference suppresses the single important aspect,' Kerala said, '…that the first 11 queries are directly covered by a judgment of the Supreme Court… the existence of the judgment is suppressed in this reference.'
The state also said that the Union government never challenged the Tamil Nadu ruling by filing a review or curative petition. Therefore, the verdict is final under Article 141 and cannot be questioned again through a different route.
Reference misuses presidential power, Kerala alleges
Calling the reference 'a serious misuse' of Article 143, Kerala stated that the top court cannot act as an appellate authority over its own settled judgments. It also said that the President cannot use Article 143 to indirectly reopen legal questions that have already been answered, the news report said.
What the Supreme Court had held earlier
In April 2025, a Supreme Court Bench ruled that the Governor's inaction under Article 200 was subject to judicial review. It said that while Article 200 does not mention a deadline, the Governor must act 'within a reasonable time' and not stall the democratic process.
On the President's powers under Article 201, the court ruled that decisions must be made within three months. If there is any delay, the reasons must be given to the concerned state.
Following this, President Droupadi Murmu sent a reference to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Constitution does not allow courts to set such deadlines or suggest 'deemed assent' in case of delays.
Kerala, however, said that the Court's rulings are final and that the President's reference is both unnecessary and unconstitutional.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India.com
12 minutes ago
- India.com
Malegaon verdict: Owaisi questions BJP's 'hypocrisy' on terrorism, asks if Centre, Maha govt will...
(File) Malegaon verdict: AIMIM president Asaduddin Owaisi on Thursday questioned the 'hypocrisy' of the BJP government on terrorism over the acquittal of all the seven accused in the 2008 Malegaon blasts case, and hoped the Centre will challenge the verdict in the Supreme Court. The seven accused who were acquitted by a special court in Mumbai include former BJP MP Pragya Singh Thakur and Lt Col Prasad Purohit. The September 2008 blasts near a mosque in the Maharashtra town killed six persons and injured 101. Speaking to reporters in the Parliament complex, Owaisi said, 'Will the Modi government and the Maharashtra government challenge the verdict in Supreme Court? Or will they continue their hypocrisy on terrorism?' He said the acquittal, coming 17 years after the blasts, raises serious questions about the investigation. 'First, the Mumbai ATS under Hemant Karkare probed the case, and then it went to the NIA. The investigation was deeply flawed. Despite the NIA saying military-grade RDX was used, no accountability has been fixed as to where that RDX came from,' he said. Owaisi also referred to earlier blasts, including the 2006 Malegaon attack and the Samjhauta Express bombing, arguing that justice has been denied across multiple cases. 'Who carried out the Samjhauta blast? Who was behind Mecca Masjid, Ajmer, and Mumbai train blasts? Even in the 2006 Malegaon case, Muslims were arrested and brutally tortured. They were later discharged. So who really did it,' he asked. The AIMIM chief also criticised the 'double standards' in terrorism cases, saying, 'There cannot be two approaches to terrorism. There has been no closure for the families of the victims, whether it's Malegaon, Samjhauta, Mumbai, or Mecca Masjid.' He also recalled how in 2015, special prosecutor Rohini Salian alleged pressure to go soft on the accused in the Malegaon blasts case. 'In 2017, the NIA reintroduced Pragya Thakur's name in the chargesheet. So, who will be held accountable for this mess,' he asked. Targeting the BJP's stand against saffron terror claims, Owaisi said, 'Was the person who killed Mahatma Gandhi Chinese? Who assassinated Rajiv Gandhi? Who killed Indira Gandhi?' Demanding the government to explain if it intends to appeal the acquittal, Owaisi said, 'If the real culprits are roaming free, the country has the right to know who bombed Malegaon in 2008?' (Only the headline has been reworked by staff. Copy comes from an agency feed)
New Indian Express
42 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Will first hear on maintainability issue on August 6 on pleas seeking review of PMLA verdict: SC
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday said it would first hear arguments on August 6 on the issue of maintainability of the petitions seeking a review of its July 2022 verdict that upheld the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) powers to arrest, attach properties allegedly involved in money laundering, and carry out search and seizure under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). A three-judge bench of Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan and N Kotiswar Singh noted that the ED has proposed three preliminary issues that primarily deal with the question of the review petitions' maintainability. The bench said the review petitioners have proposed 13 questions for its consideration. It noted the submissions of the questions raised by both parties and fixed the matter for further hearing on August 6. 'Since the proposed issues are arising in the review proceedings, we propose to first hear the parties on the issue of maintainability of the review petitions, followed by a hearing on the questions proposed to be raised on behalf of the review petitioners. Eventually, the questions that would finally arise for consideration will also be determined by us if we hold that the review petitions are maintainable,' the bench observed. The Supreme Court had on 4 May 2025 reconstituted a new bench to hear a batch of review petitions filed against the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (VMC) judgment, which upheld certain provisions of the PMLA. The VMC judgment was delivered on 27 July 2022 by a three-judge bench headed by Justice A M Khanwilkar, and Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and C T Ravikumar (all now retired). It upheld certain provisions of the PMLA. 'Sections 5, 8 (4), 15, 17 and 19 of PMLA, relating to the Directorate's power of attachment, search and seizure, and arrest is upheld,' the top court had said.
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
Supreme Court to hear cases on Rohingya status, detention
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear cases related to Rohingyas as to whether they are refugees or illegal entrants, and whether they can be detained indefinitely in India. The apex court, which was hearing a batch of petitions on the deportation and living conditions of Rohingya refugees in the country, identified the main issues and decided to segregate them for adjudication later. A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justice Surya Kant, Justice Dipankar Datta, and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh, while recording the submissions of the petitioners and others, observed that once the key issues are decided, other factors might be consequential. The Court segregated the cases for convenience and passed an order to hear the matter based on these issues. 'Are Rohingyas entitled to be declared as refugees, and if so, what protections or rights are they entitled to? If they are not refugees but illegal entrants, are the Union government's actions in deporting them justified? Even if they are held to be illegal entrants, can they be detained indefinitely, or are they entitled to be released on bail under conditions the Court deem fit to be imposed? Whether the Rohingyas who are not detained and living in refugee camps, have been provided basic amenities such as sanitation, drinking water, and education, etc. (in conformity with Article 21)?' The Court also said it would examine whether, if the Rohingyas are deemed illegal entrants, the Government of India and the States are obligated to deport them in accordance with the law. It, however, clarified that the issues that arose in Batch II will be dealt with separately by the Supreme Court. The apex court, however, did not fix any particular date to hear the issues.
