Supreme Court to examine President Murmu’s Article 143 reference on fixed timelines for Governors and the President. Hearing to begin on July 22 at 10:30 AM before a Constitution Bench led by CJI Gavai.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has issued a formal notice regarding the formation of a Special Bench that will take up a crucial matter for hearing on July 22, 2025 (Tuesday). The case listed for this special hearing is “Spl. Ref. No. 1/2025” and will be taken up at 10:30 A.M. in the Chief Justice’s Court.
According to the official notice, the specially constituted Bench will include some of the seniormost judges of the Apex Court.
The Bench will comprise
“Hon’ble the Chief Justice, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Atul S. Chandurkar.”
This collective panel of five judges will be hearing the Special Reference matter which, by procedural significance, demands the attention of a larger Bench.
The constitution of such a Bench usually implies the matter at hand holds constitutional or national importance. Such references are often made under Article 143 of the Indian Constitution, though the nature of the reference in this instance is not specified in the notice.
The notice clearly states,
“Special Bench comprising Hon’ble the Chief Justice, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Atul S. Chandurkar has been constituted in Chief Justice’s Court at 10.30 A.M. on 22.07.2025 (Tuesday) for hearing Spl. Ref. No. 1/2025.”
It further informs that due to this special hearing, routine court proceedings in several other benches of the Supreme Court will commence only after the special matter is concluded.
As stated,
“Hence, the regular Benches in Chief Justice’s Court, Court Nos. 2, 3 and 7 will sit after the hearing in aforesaid matter is over.”
This move indicates the gravity of the case to be heard and reflects the Court’s prioritization of the issue in question. The allocation of five senior judges and the disruption of regular court schedules signify that the matter may have wide-ranging legal, constitutional, or political implications.
The notice, dated July 21, 2025, was issued by the Deputy Registrar (Listing) and a copy has been marked to “All concerned.”
This ensures that lawyers, litigants, and other stakeholders are made aware of the scheduling changes and the composition of the Bench.
Such special benches are rare and usually convened in cases involving interpretation of the Constitution, presidential references, or disputes requiring authoritative rulings from the highest bench strength in the court’s hierarchy.
Background: Why This Case Matters
The controversy began when, on April 8, 2025, a Supreme Court bench ruled that Governors and the President must act within specific timeframes on state bills.
The judgment said the President must decide on a bill forwarded by a Governor within three months, and that Governors must act without discretion, strictly following the advice of the Council of Ministers. This decision was passed in a case involving the Tamil Nadu government.
Instead of filing a review, the Centre chose the Presidential Reference route. In May 2025, President Droupadi Murmu sent a five-page reference to the Supreme Court under Article 143(1).
She posed 14 legal questions seeking clarity on the roles of the President and Governors under Articles 200 and 201, which do not prescribe any time limits for action on bills.
As per the Constitution, Article 143(1) allows the President to consult the top court in case of any important question of law or public importance.
The Article states:
“If at any time it appears to the President that a question of law or fact has arisen, or is likely to arise, which is of such a nature and of such public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court upon it, he may refer the question to that Court for consideration and the Court may, after such hearing as it thinks fit, report to the President its opinion thereon.”
In her reference, President Murmu raised concerns over the Supreme Court invoking Article 142, which empowers the court to do “complete justice”, and directing that the bill returned to the Governor by the Tamil Nadu Assembly be treated as passed.
The President stated:
“Whereas the concept of a deemed assent of the President and the Governor is alien to the constitutional scheme and fundamentally circumscribes the power of the President and the Governor.”
She further questioned the court’s power under Article 142 in areas where constitutional or statutory rules already exist, adding:
“It appears to me that the following questions of the law have arisen and are of such nature and of such public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court of India thereon.”
In the April judgment, the bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan had ruled that Governors cannot delay or reserve bills arbitrarily.
They said the Governor must follow the advice of ministers under Article 200, and state governments could approach the top court if the President withholds assent to a bill. The judgment also made it clear that:
“Personal dissatisfaction of Governor, political expediency or any other extraneous or irrelevant considerations” are not valid grounds to reserve a bill, and any such action would be “liable to be set aside forthwith on that ground alone.”
Read Notice:
Click Here to Read More Reports on CJI BR GAVAI
