Thiruvananthapuram, April 13, 2025 (Bharat Khabarnama Bureau) Kerala Governor Rajendra Arlekar has criticized the Supreme Court’s decision to set a time limit for governors to approve bills, saying it is a matter of judicial overreach and Parliament should have allowed to decide on the issue or referred the case to a larger constitutional bench.
Mentionably, a SC bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan had called Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi’s decision to reserve 10 bills passed again for the President’s assent “illegal” while trying to thwart the resolve of the State Assembly and has set deadlines to prevent such inaction by Governors across the country.
The Kerala Governor Arlekar has criticised the apex court’s decision to set a specific deadline for giving assent to the bills. He said, “If all decisions are to be taken by the courts, then the need for Parliament is gone. This is an excess by the judiciary and they should not have done it.”
Governor Rajendra questioned that “there is no time limit in the Constitution for the Governor to give his assent to the bill. But if the Supreme Court today says that there should be a time limit, be it one month or three months, then it becomes a constitutional amendment. If this constitutional amendment is being made by the Supreme Court, then what is the need for the Legislative Assembly and Parliament? I do not understand this, two judges sitting there decide the fate of the constitutional order, whereas making constitutional amendments is the prerogative of Parliament.” Arlekar further said that the case should have been sent to a larger Bench because the matter they were discussing was a constitutional matter.
The apex court’s decision has major implications for Indian politics and federalism. Earlier, there have been similar disputes between governors and state governments in Punjab, Kerala, Telangana and West Bengal where the governors have come under fire for obstructing the legislative process. By affirming that, governors should act on the advice of elected governments and within the time frame set by them, the apex court has in a way redefined the modalities of the governor’s power in a federal structure.
Arlekar said that the issue should have been decided by Parliament. In his argument, Arlekar also referred to the pendency of cases in the courts. He said, “We have seen many judicial cases pending for years in various courts. There must be some reasons for this too. If the judges of the Supreme Court have some reasons, then the governor may also have some reasons. “If the people of this country feel that there should be a deadline, let the people do it through Parliament. The judiciary could have could have suggested the same, he added.
