The Kerala government had moved the apex court last year, claiming inaction on the part of the Governor concerning several bills passed by the state legislature.

The Supreme Court had earlier issued notices to the Centre and the Additional Chief Secretary to the Kerala Governor, asking them to file a detailed reply on the issue.

In its petition, the Kerala government challenged the Governor’s decision to keep several bills pending for months, either by refusing to assent to them or by reserving them for the President’s consideration.

Venugopal had earlier urged the apex court to lay down guidelines on when Governors can return or refer bills.

“This is a confusion in the minds of various Governors in the country regarding what their powers are in relation to assenting to bills. In the present (Kerala) case, out of eight bills, two had been kept pending for 23 months, one for 15 months, another for 13 months, and others for 10 months. It is a very sad state of affairs. This confusion among Governors, whereby they keep bills pending, is against the Constitution,” the former Attorney General told the apex court.

Venugopal further said that the court should clarify when Governors can refuse assent and when they can refer bills to the President.

In its petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, the Kerala government also challenged the reconsideration and action of President Droupadi Murmu in withholding assent to four out of the seven bills referred by the Kerala Governor.

The Kerala government argued that none of the bills referred to the President related to Centre-State relations and, therefore, did not require Presidential assent.