The Kerala Government has opposed the Presidential reference filed before the Supreme Court regarding deadlines for Governors in granting assent to state bills.

In its application submitted to the Court, the state contended that the reference is “not maintainable” and suffers from “serious legal lacunae.”

Kerala argued that 11 out of the 14 questions raised in the reference have already been addressed by the Supreme Court in its judgment in the Tamil Nadu Government vs Governor case. Since the Union Government has not filed any review or curative petition against that verdict, Kerala maintained that the Centre has effectively accepted the ruling.

Stating that the judgment has neither been assailed nor set aside in any validly constituted proceeding, Kerala submitted that it has attained finality and is binding under Article 141 of the Constitution. Therefore, it cannot be challenged indirectly through the current reference.

The state alleged that the Union Government is using the reference as a device to reopen and contest settled constitutional issues, without disclosing that the apex court has already ruled on them.

Emphasising Article 144, Kerala asserted that the President and the Council of Ministers are constitutionally bound to act in aid of the Supreme Court, not seek to overturn its judgments by indirect means.

Kerala also objected to the claim made in the reference that Article 200 does not prescribe a timeline for Governors to act on bills. The state said the Supreme Court has already interpreted the provision clearly, and the reference attempts to mislead the Court into reconsidering its settled position.

Alleging suppression of judicial precedent, misinterpretation of constitutional provisions, and lack of transparency in the reference, Kerala urged the Court to return the reference unanswered.

“This Court cannot sit in appeal over its own judgments—nor can that power be vested in it by the President under Article 143,” the state submitted.

Kerala further contended that if the foundation of the reference is flawed and the majority of questions aim to overturn existing judgments, the presence of two or three additional questions does not obligate the Court to address any of them.

– Ends