Blitz Bureau
NEW DELHI: Attorney General (AG) R Venkataramani and Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta on April 22 opposed the Kerala Government’s argument 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, reported Bar and Bench.
Interestingly, the senior counsel representing the LDF-led Kerala Government in this matter is former Attorney General KK Venugopal. This aspect did not go unnoticed by the court.
“I have the habit of calling you Mr. AG whenever I see you,” the Bench orally remarked, in a lighter vein while addressing Venugopal. The Bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi was hearing two petitions filed by the Kerala Government.
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. “Both petitions are covered by recent judgment (in Tamil Nadu Governor’s case) … o n what is time limit after reference to President, that is held to be 3 months. No other question arises here,” Venugopal argued.
Mehta disagreed and said that he wished to make submissions to show the difference between the present case and the Tamil Nadu Governor’s case. Venkataramani supported SG Mehta’s view.
“I would say very humbly, with deep respect to Mr. Venugopal, the judgment does not cover certain issues in this case on facts that are essentially different. We would like to show the differences, I will put in a note,” AG Venkataramani said. Meanwhile, Venugopal told the court that the Kerala Government is withdrawing an amendment application that was earlier filed seeking certain guidelines on how the Governor is expected to perform its functions under Article 200 of the Constitution.
Venugopal added that this amendment is no longer required since the Tamil Nadu Governor judgment covers this aspect of the matter as well. The matter was eventually adjourned to May 6 for further hearing.
