Supreme Court Upholds State’s Right to Withdraw Governor-Delay Pleas, Overruling Centre’s Objections

New Delhi – In a significant procedural ruling that underscores a litigant's autonomy, the Supreme Court on Friday, July 25, permitted the State of Kerala to unconditionally withdraw two petitions filed in 2023 against the then-Governor's prolonged delay in granting assent to state legislation. The decision by a bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar came despite vehement opposition from the Union Government, which argued that the petitions should be kept pending and linked with an ongoing Presidential reference on the same constitutional question.

The Court's order reinforces the principle of dominus litigant —the master of the suit—affirming that a petitioner cannot be compelled to pursue litigation against their will. The ruling concludes a key chapter in the legal tussle between the Kerala government and the Raj Bhavan, even as the broader constitutional questions surrounding the Governor's powers await determination by a Constitution Bench.

---

The Core of the Dispute: Withdrawal vs. Tagging

The hearing saw a sharp exchange between the counsels for the State of Kerala and the Union of India. Senior Advocate K.K. Venugopal, appearing for Kerala, made a straightforward plea to the bench: the State wished to withdraw its petitions. The petitions in question included a 2023 writ petition challenging Governor Arif Mohammad Khan’s inaction on eight bills and a special leave petition against a Kerala High Court order dismissing a related PIL.

However, the Union government, represented by Attorney General for India R. Venkataramani and Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, strongly resisted the withdrawal. Their primary contention was that the core issue—the timeline for a Governor to act on bills passed by a legislature—is the subject of a pending Presidential reference under Article 143 of the Constitution. The reference, which is set to be heard by a Constitution Bench in August, directly addresses the scope of gubernatorial powers in the legislative process.

The Solicitor General proposed a solution: "The State's petitions could be tagged along with the President's reference."

This suggestion was immediately countered by Mr. Venugopal, who questioned the procedural propriety of such a move. "How can withdrawal be tagged? The Constitution Bench will be surprised," he retorted, emphasizing the fundamental right of a petitioner to withdraw a case.

The Centre's Argument: An "Implied" Reliance

The Attorney General advanced a more nuanced argument, suggesting that Kerala's withdrawal was not a simple procedural matter. He submitted that the State was implicitly relying on the Supreme Court's prior judgment in the Tamil Nadu Governor case , which is a key precedent being considered under the Presidential reference.

"It is not that they are withdrawing it simplicitor because they don't want to pursue this issue," the AG argued. "The judgment in the Tamil Nadu case is being relied upon by them. Then I may have a point in saying, let the matter be heard and also in saying that judgment, for a number of reasons, may be referred to a larger bench." He pointed to historical precedents from 1996 and 2011 where pending writ petitions were heard alongside constitutional references.

Mr. Venugopal was unequivocal in his response: "I am not relying upon anything. I am withdrawing it."

Justice Narasimha intervened, drawing a crucial distinction that would ultimately decide the matter. "They want to withdraw it. If they were asking us to dispose of the petitions in terms of the judgment, that is a different issue," the judge observed. This pointed clarification separated Kerala's action from a plea for a consent decree based on a precedent. Seeing that the State was not seeking any substantive relief based on the Tamil Nadu judgment but was instead seeking a clean, unconditional withdrawal, the bench found no grounds to prevent it.

When the AG pressed further, asking, "Is it not implied [that they want to rely upon the judgment]?", the bench remained unpersuaded. It proceeded to allow the withdrawal, with Mr. Venugopal confirming at the AG's insistence that the withdrawal was, indeed, "unconditional."

Background: A Tumultuous Legislative Standoff

The petitions stemmed from a protracted conflict between the Pinarayi Vijayan-led government and then-Governor Arif Mohammad Khan over his failure to act on several key bills. In its 2023 writ petition, the State highlighted that bills concerning critical amendments to laws on State Universities and Cooperative Societies had been pending with the Governor for periods ranging from seven to 24 months.

The Supreme Court's intervention had an immediate effect. After the Court issued notice on November 20, 2023, the Governor referred seven of the eight pending bills to the President of India. During a hearing on November 29, 2023, the bench, then led by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, strongly criticized the Governor's inaction. Citing the Court's recent judgment in the Punjab Governor case (November 23, 2023), the CJI remarked that the "power of the Governor cannot be utilised to pause the law-making exercise of the legislature." The Punjab judgment had firmly established that a Governor does not possess veto powers and cannot indefinitely withhold assent.

The matter escalated in February 2024 when the President withheld assent from four of the referred bills, reportedly without providing reasons, while approving the other three. In response, the State of Kerala filed a new writ petition in March 2024 (which was not listed for hearing on Friday), challenging both the Governor's act of referring the bills and the President's subsequent withholding of assent.

Legal and Constitutional Implications

The Supreme Court's decision to permit the withdrawal, while procedural in nature, carries significant weight.

1. Vindication of Dominus Litigant Principle: The ruling is a robust affirmation that a litigant retains control over their case. Even in matters of profound constitutional importance with overlapping issues before a larger bench, the court will not compel a party to continue litigation. This principle is fundamental to the adversarial system.

2. Strategic Litigation and Shifting Battlegrounds: Kerala's decision to withdraw the older petitions may be a strategic one. With the Governor having acted on the bills (either by referring them to the President or assenting), the original cause of action—delay—had become partially infructuous. The legal battle has now shifted to the validity of the Governor's reference and the President's rejection, which is the subject of the newer, pending writ petition. By withdrawing the 2023 petitions, the State streamlines its legal focus onto this subsequent challenge.

3. The Unresolved Core Issue: While Kerala's specific grievances in the 2023 petitions are now off the docket, the underlying constitutional tension remains. The forthcoming hearing before the Constitution Bench on the Presidential reference will be the main event, where the Supreme Court is expected to lay down definitive guidelines on the powers, duties, and timelines for Governors in the legislative process. The outcome of that reference will have far-reaching implications for federalism and the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches in all states.

For now, the Supreme Court has drawn a clear line between a litigant's procedural rights and the Court's jurisdiction over substantive constitutional questions. While the Centre failed to force a tag-along, it will have a full opportunity to argue its case on the Governor's powers before the Constitution Bench, where the final word on this contentious issue will be written.