The Supreme Court will hear the Presidential reference on timelines for Governors and the President to act on State Bills from August 19. CJI-led Bench to first decide if the reference is legally maintainable.
New Delhi: On July 29, the Supreme Court of India announced that it will begin hearing the important Presidential Reference case from August 19. This case deals with the timelines and processes that the President of India and State Governors must follow when considering Bills passed by State Legislatures.
A Constitution Bench of five judges—Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice PS Narasimha, and Justice Atul S Chandurkar—will hear the case. The Bench has asked all parties to submit their written arguments by August 12.
The Court directed,
“Let parties file written submissions on or before August 12. For Nodal counsels for Union and all other parties, we appoint Misha Rohatgi for the parties who are opposing the reference. We will start hearing on August 19,”
Senior Advocate KK Venugopal, appearing for the State of Kerala, raised questions about whether the reference itself is legally valid.
He said,
“There are grounds for it to be returned and we question the maintainability.”
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, also opposing the reference, added,
“Ms. Misha Rohatgi will be nodal counsel from our side.”
On the other hand, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the Central Government, submitted,
“Mr. Aman Mehta will be the standing counsel at our end.”
The Court made it clear that it will first examine whether the reference is maintainable before going into the other issues.
The Court said,
“We will hear parties on maintainability first. The ones opposing shall be heard in 19, 20, 21 and 26 August. Supporting the reference will be heard on August 20, Sept 2, 3 and 9. Time schedule will be strictly followed. Let parties complete arguments as prescribed,”
This reference to the Supreme Court was made by President Droupadi Murmu under Article 143(1) of the Indian Constitution. This provision allows the President to request the opinion of the Supreme Court on any question of law or public importance.
The current reference was triggered by a Supreme Court judgment delivered on April 8, 2024, in a case filed by the State of Tamil Nadu against its Governor. In that judgment, a Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan had ruled that the Governor cannot delay action on Bills indefinitely.
The Court had held:
“Though no timeline is prescribed under Article 200, the same cannot be construed as conferring untrammeled discretion on the Governor to withhold action on Bills presented by the State legislature.”
The Court also said that the lack of specific time limits in the Constitution could not be used to stall democratic procedures. It laid down that Governors must act on Bills within a “reasonable time.”
Similarly, about the powers of the President under Article 201, the Court observed that the President is also expected to act within a time frame and not beyond judicial scrutiny.
The Bench had said:
“The President is required to take a decision on the Bills within a period of three months from the date on which such reference is received and in case of any delay beyond this period, appropriate reasons would have to be recorded and conveyed to the concerned State.”
This ruling led President Murmu to seek clarification from the Supreme Court by sending a Presidential reference. The President posed 14 constitutional questions on the Court’s interpretation of Articles 200 and 201.
The reference objected to the introduction of a concept called “deemed assent”—which means that if the President or Governor does not act within a prescribed period, the Bill is considered approved. The reference said that “deemed assent” is not provided anywhere in the Constitution.
It raised serious questions such as whether the Supreme Court can lay down new procedures when the Constitution itself is silent on the matter, and whether this judicial action interferes with the discretionary powers of constitutional authorities like the President and Governors.
According to the reference, judicial directions like those in the Tamil Nadu Governor case could disturb the balance between the Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary, which is a basic feature of the Constitution.
The reference argued that the Supreme Court, by setting deadlines and creating new constitutional doctrines, may have stepped into the legislative domain.
States like Kerala and Tamil Nadu have opposed the Presidential reference. They claim it is not maintainable and must be returned unanswered.
Tamil Nadu said in its application that the reference is actually an appeal disguised as a constitutional query. It added that the Supreme Court is not allowed to re-review its own judgment in this way.
Kerala also filed an application asking the Supreme Court to declare the Presidential reference not maintainable.
The hearings starting August 19 will first address these concerns of maintainability, followed by arguments on the main constitutional issues.
Background Of The Case
The Presidential Reference No. 1 of 2025 stems from a growing constitutional conflict between several State Governments and the office of the Governors and the President of India over the processing of State Bills. Under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution, a Governor has the authority to assent to a Bill, withhold assent, return it (if it’s not a money bill), or reserve it for the consideration of the President.
However, in recent years, Governors in states like Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Punjab have allegedly delayed taking any action on Bills passed by the State Legislatures, some of which were left pending for several months without explanation.
This has raised concerns about the erosion of federal principles and the misuse of discretionary powers. In light of these developments and following a significant judgment by the Supreme Court in April 2025 in State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu, which criticized such delays, the Union Government has invoked Article 143 to seek the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion.
The reference seeks clarity on the scope and limits of the powers of the Governor and the President in dealing with State legislation, and whether prolonged inaction or reservation of Bills undermines the democratic functioning of State Governments within India’s federal structure.
Case Title:
In Re: Assent, Withholding, or Reservation of Bills by the Governor and President of India.
Click Here to Read More Reports on Governor Bill
