The government of Kerala has firmly contested the validity of a presidential reference that seeks the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion regarding the timelines for the President and Governors to respond to state bills. The state contended that this issue has already been definitively resolved by previous rulings and cannot be revisited through such a reference.

The objection, submitted prior to Tuesday’s hearing, challenges the Centre’s invocation of Article 143 of the Constitution to present 14 questions to the Supreme Court following its ruling on April 8. This judgment, for the first time, established specific timelines for constitutional authorities to act on state legislation.

Kerala asserted that the reference seeks to “obliquely” contest the April 8 ruling without submitting a review petition — a maneuver it labeled as a “serious misuse” of Article 143. “The reference undermines its own legitimacy and aims to mislead the court into overturning its own judgment, the existence of which has been concealed,” the state stated in its application.

In April, the Supreme Court determined that:

Governors are required to act within three months if they choose to withhold or reserve a bill for presidential assent. If a bill is re-enacted by a state legislature, assent must be provided within a month.

The President is obligated to make a decision within three months of receiving a bill.

The ruling invalidated Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi’s decision to reserve ten re-enacted bills for presidential assent after previously withholding approval. The court ruled such withholding as “illegal” and stated that the bills would be deemed “assented to” by default.

Kerala’s application, submitted through advocate CK Sasi, condemned the reference as an effort to obtain a conflicting ruling on the timeline specified under Article 200 of the Constitution. It highlighted that the article already requires action “as soon as possible” and that this has been affirmed by at least three previous Supreme Court rulings.

“The reference is being utilized as a means to secure rulings on critical constitutional matters by overriding conclusive determinations that have already been made,” the application asserted. It called on the court to reject the reference, arguing that it was devoid of legal basis and constituted an abuse of the constitutional provision.