The Kerala government on Tuesday told the Supreme Court that it wants to withdraw the petitions filed by the State against the Governor's actions to withhold assent to bills passed by the State legislature..Senior Advocate and former Attorney General KK Venugopal appeared for Kerala government before the Bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi and sought permission to withdraw the matter. This was in light of the fact that Governor had referred the bills to the President. "Both the petitions are infructuous. We will be withdrawing both of them," Venugopal said.However, Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, representing the Central government, opposed the same."These are constitutional issues. It cannot be filed lightly and withdrawn lightly. We are working on the issues involved," he contended."How can he say so? Both Attorney General and Solicitor General opposing a withdrawal is strange," Venugopal retorted. "When a person of your stature withdraws even withdrawal has to be taken seriously," SG Mehta replied.The Bench eventually adjourned the matter for May 13 at the request of the parties."Of course, we realise you (Kerala) are entitled to withdraw," the Bench remarked while adjourning the case. .One petition was filed in 2023 over delays by then-Kerala Governor Arif Mohammed Khan in clearing Bills passed by the State Legislature. In November that year, the State told the top court that as many as eight Bills were pending assent before the Governor for periods ranging between seven months and twenty three months.A second petition was filed in 2024 against President Droupadi Murmu's decision to withhold her assent to four of the seven bills referred to her by the State Governor Arif Mohammed Khan in 2023. During the previous hearing of the matter on April 22, the State had said that the Supreme Court's recent judgment concerning the Tamil Nadu Governor would cover a case involving allegations of undue delay by the Kerala Governor in clearing State Bills."Both petitions are covered by recent judgment (in Tamil Nadu Governor's case) ... on what is time limit after reference to President, that is held to be 3 months. No other question arises here," Venugopal had argued then.SG Tushar Mehta had disagreed and said that he wished to make submissions to show the difference between the present case and the Tamil Nadu Governor's case."It is not covered my lord," SG Mehta had said then.Attorney General R Venkataramani too had supported SG Mehta's view..[Read Live Coverage of today's hearing]
The Kerala government on Tuesday told the Supreme Court that it wants to withdraw the petitions filed by the State against the Governor's actions to withhold assent to bills passed by the State legislature..Senior Advocate and former Attorney General KK Venugopal appeared for Kerala government before the Bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi and sought permission to withdraw the matter. This was in light of the fact that Governor had referred the bills to the President. "Both the petitions are infructuous. We will be withdrawing both of them," Venugopal said.However, Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, representing the Central government, opposed the same."These are constitutional issues. It cannot be filed lightly and withdrawn lightly. We are working on the issues involved," he contended."How can he say so? Both Attorney General and Solicitor General opposing a withdrawal is strange," Venugopal retorted. "When a person of your stature withdraws even withdrawal has to be taken seriously," SG Mehta replied.The Bench eventually adjourned the matter for May 13 at the request of the parties."Of course, we realise you (Kerala) are entitled to withdraw," the Bench remarked while adjourning the case. .One petition was filed in 2023 over delays by then-Kerala Governor Arif Mohammed Khan in clearing Bills passed by the State Legislature. In November that year, the State told the top court that as many as eight Bills were pending assent before the Governor for periods ranging between seven months and twenty three months.A second petition was filed in 2024 against President Droupadi Murmu's decision to withhold her assent to four of the seven bills referred to her by the State Governor Arif Mohammed Khan in 2023. During the previous hearing of the matter on April 22, the State had said that the Supreme Court's recent judgment concerning the Tamil Nadu Governor would cover a case involving allegations of undue delay by the Kerala Governor in clearing State Bills."Both petitions are covered by recent judgment (in Tamil Nadu Governor's case) ... on what is time limit after reference to President, that is held to be 3 months. No other question arises here," Venugopal had argued then.SG Tushar Mehta had disagreed and said that he wished to make submissions to show the difference between the present case and the Tamil Nadu Governor's case."It is not covered my lord," SG Mehta had said then.Attorney General R Venkataramani too had supported SG Mehta's view..[Read Live Coverage of today's hearing]
