CPM, Congress Criticize Kerala Governor’s SC Comments.
Kerala Governor Arif Mohammed Khan has drawn criticism from the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and the Congress over his recent comments on a Supreme Court judgment concerning the role. The controversy erupted following an interview Governor Khan gave to the Hindustan Times, where he expressed disagreement with the apex court’s ruling and suggested that the matter should have been referred to a Constitution Bench instead of being handled by a division bench.
In the interview, Governor Khan referenced the Supreme Court’s recent judgment involving Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi. The court had ruled that governors cannot indefinitely delay action on bills passed by elected state legislatures, and must act within a reasonable timeframe. However, Khan opined that the issue was of constitutional significance and merited a larger bench’s scrutiny.
The CPM and the Congress have slammed Khan for questioning the authority of the Supreme Court and accused him of attempting to undermine the judiciary’s credibility. They further alleged that his statements reflect a partisan approach aimed at defending controversial conduct by governors aligned with the BJP-led central government.
Kerala Governor’s Criticism of SC Verdict Sparks Outrage from CPI(M), Congress
Mandates Governors to act within a fixed timeframe on Bills passed by the Legislature. The Governor, in an interview with the Hindustan Times, reportedly said that the Supreme Court’s decision was an “overreach by the judiciary,” prompting a wave of backlash from key opposition parties in the state.
The Supreme Court, in that case, had laid down specific timelines for Governors to either give assent, withhold assent, or return the Bills passed by state legislatures. The ruling was seen as a move to ensure Governors do not indefinitely delay legislation passed by elected state governments. However, Arlekar expressed reservations about the judgment and suggested that the matter should have ideally been referred to a Constitution Bench instead of being decided by a division bench.
CPI(M) Politburo member and senior leader M A Baby lashed out at Arlekar, stating that his statements were “unfortunate and undesirable.” Speaking to reporters in Delhi, Baby emphasized that the So, how can Governors possess a power or authority that even the President does not have?” he asked.
All Governors, including the one in Kerala, should be able to recognise and respect this spirit. His criticism is deeply disappointing and goes against the foundational principles of our democracy,” Baby remarked.
Adding fuel to the fire, AICC general secretary and Congress MP from Alappuzha, K C Venugopal, also expressed strong reservations over Arlekar’s remarks. Speaking at a Congress function in Kozhikode, Venugopal accused the Governor of toeing the BJP’s political line and attempting to dilute the Supreme Court’s authority. It appears that he is worried the BJP’s hidden agenda will be exposed if the court’s directions are implemented,” he said.
Venugopal further noted that Governors are expected to uphold constitutional norms and act in a non-partisan manner. Governor Arlekar’s statement should be seen in that context,” he said, adding that such interventions are aimed at undermining federal principles.
The Supreme Court verdict in question was hailed by many legal experts and political leaders as a necessary step to prevent legislative paralysis caused by Governors withholding Bills indefinitely. The court had ruled that Governors must take action—either give assent, withhold assent, or return the Bill—within a reasonable timeframe, instead of keeping Bills pending without justification. The judgment was seen as a check against the misuse of gubernatorial powers for political purposes.
However, Governor Arlekar’s take that the judgment amounts to judicial overreach has revived the long-standing debate over the role and powers of Governors in India’s federal structure. Arlekar reportedly told Hindustan Times that the judiciary should not interfere in matters that fall within the executive domain and that the verdict may have gone beyond its constitutional mandate.
Critics argue that such a stance not only challenges the Supreme Court’s constitutional authority but also raises concerns about the neutrality of Governors, who are expected to act independently of political affiliations. In Kerala, where the LDF government has had multiple run-ins with the Raj Bhavan, Arlekar’s statement is being seen as yet another instance of the Governor taking a confrontational posture against the state government.
Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan has, on several occasions in the past, accused the Governor of acting as an agent of the central government. While the Chief Minister has not yet responded directly to Arlekar’s latest remarks, sources in the government indicated that a formal response could be issued soon.
The larger political fallout of this controversy could reignite the debate on the need to redefine the role of Governors in Indian democracy. Many political parties have long demanded reforms to ensure that Governors cannot act arbitrarily or in a politically motivated manner. The Supreme Court’s verdict had been seen as a move in that direction, reinforcing the idea that Governors are not above constitutional accountability.
Meanwhile, legal experts have pointed out that the judiciary, as the guardian of the Constitution, has every right to issue directions when constitutional authorities fail to act. “If Governors are sitting on Bills indefinitely without justification, it is the duty of the court to intervene,” said a senior advocate from the Kerala High Court.
As the row deepens, political observers believe that Governor Arlekar’s comments could further alienate him from the state government and spark new confrontations in the months to come. With elections around the corner in several states and the Lok Sabha elections not far away, tensions between Raj Bhavans and state governments are expected to play a significant role in shaping the political narrative.
For now, the Governor’s remarks have united the CPI(M) and Congress in rare consensus, both condemning what they perceive as an attack on the Supreme Court and the constitutional framework it upholds.