Today, On 22nd July, CJI B.R. Gavai said, “We will list this next week and hear this mid August,” as the Supreme Court issued notices to the Union and all States on the President’s reference over timelines for Bill assent.
New Delhi: Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai said right at the beginning of the hearing that the Supreme Court will issue notice to both the Union and State governments in the important matter related to a Presidential reference.
The Constitution Bench, led by the CJI, is currently hearing the reference sent by the President of India to decide whether the Supreme Court can fix timelines and lay down procedures for Governors and the President while dealing with Bills passed by State legislatures.
At the outset, CJI Gavai stated,
“We issue notice to the Union and all state govt. We will send it to all chief secretaries and all standing counsels. We will list this next week and hear this mid August.”
This means that all State governments, through their Chief Secretaries and legal representatives, will be officially informed to respond to the matter.
The case will be listed again next week for fixing a date in mid-August for a detailed hearing.
The Kerala government, through Senior Advocate K.K. Venugopal, raised an objection about whether the Presidential reference itself can be heard and decided by the Supreme Court.
Venugopal submitted,
“We are for State of Kerala. We are raising issues of maintainability.”
This indicates that Kerala believes the matter may not be fit to be taken up under Article 143 of the Constitution, which allows the President to seek the opinion of the Supreme Court on questions of law.
The Constitution Bench will now take up the matter again next Tuesday to move the case forward.
President Droupadi Murmu, On May 13, 2025, invoked the Supreme Court’s advisory jurisdiction under Article 143 of the Constitution. This provision allows the President to seek the Court’s opinion on significant questions of law or fact.
In total, the President referred 14 questions regarding the powers of the Governor and the President under Articles 200 and 201, respectively. This reference followed the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025), where the Court established timelines for both the Governor and the President concerning bills awaiting assent.
In 2023, the Tamil Nadu government contested Governor R.N. Ravi’s extended delay in granting assent to ten bills passed by the state assembly. Due to the lack of communication regarding these bills, the assembly had re-enacted them, resulting in their reservation for the President’s consideration.
The Supreme Court, On April 8, 2025, determined that the Governor’s indefinite delay in withholding state legislative bills was “illegal” and “erroneous.” The Bench clarified that the Governor’s powers under Article 200 are limited to three actions: granting assent, withholding assent, or reserving the bill for the President’s consideration.
Furthermore, the Governor must grant assent to bills that have been re-passed by the state assembly after being withheld, as he cannot exercise an “absolute veto” over them.
The Court established three sets of timelines for the Governor to grant assent to bills. If a bill is withheld or reserved for the President with the advice of the Council of Ministers, it must be returned to the legislature within one month. If the return is contrary to the advice, it must be sent back within three months.
If the legislature re-passes the bill, assent must be granted within one month. Any failure to adhere to these timelines is subject to judicial review, allowing officials to explain any delays. Additionally, a three-month deadline was set for the President’s approval of bills reserved for her consideration.
Notably, the Bench employed the Court’s inherent powers under Article 142 to deem assent on ten pending state bills. By ‘deeming assent,’ the judgment rendered any action by the President on the reserved bills void, leading to the automatic cancellation of the President’s assent to one of the bills.
The ruling received mixed reactions; some praised it, while others criticized the Court for infringing on the separation of powers.
Following the judgment, President Murmu reached out to the Chief Justice with questions seeking clarification on whether judicial interventions are constitutional, given that Articles 200 and 201 do not outline specific timelines or methods for exercising the powers of the Governor and the President.
The reference questions whether the exercise of constitutional discretion by the Governor under Article 200 and by the President under Article 201 is justiciable.
Case Title: In Re: Assent, Withholding, or Reservation of Bills by the Governor and President of India, SPL.REF. No. 1/2025