Today, On 19th August, Presidential Reference Case, Chief Justice B.R. Gavai clarified that the Supreme Court will only be expressing its view on the law and not delivering a judgment in the Tamil Nadu case while hearing objections from Tamil Nadu and Kerala.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court inquired about the implications of the president seeking input through a presidential reference regarding the imposition of fixed timelines for governors and the president to act on bills passed by state legislatures.
A five-judge Constitution bench, led by Chief Justice B R Gavai, posed this question as the counsel for the opposition-ruled Tamil Nadu and Kerala governments challenged the maintainability of the presidential reference.
The bench included Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha, and A S Chandurkar.
The bench asked,
“When the hon’ble president herself is seeking reference then what is the problem? Are you really serious about contesting this?”
The bench noted,
“It is very clear that we are sitting in an advisory jurisdiction,”
In May, President Droupadi Murmu invoked powers under Article 143(1) to inquire whether judicial orders could impose timelines for the president’s discretion in dealing with bills from state assemblies.
The Centre argued in its written submission that imposing fixed timelines on governors and the president for acting on bills would result in one branch of government overstepping its constitutional boundaries, leading to “constitutional disorder.”
Senior advocate K K Venugopal, representing the Kerala government, argued that similar issues regarding Article 200, which mandates governors to act “as soon as possible” on state bills, have already been interpreted by the Supreme Court in earlier cases involving Punjab, Telangana, and Tamil Nadu.
He cited various Supreme Court rulings, stating that the governor’s powers under Article 200 have been consistently defined by the apex court. For the first time, in the Tamil Nadu (State vs Governor) case, a deadline was established for the assent of bills passed by the assembly.
Suggesting that the government of India should have sought a formal review instead of invoking Article 143 for a presidential reference, he contended,
“These issues are no longer res integra (undecided). Once judgments cover the field, a fresh presidential reference cannot be entertained,”
Venugopal also stated that the president is obligated to act on the advice of the council of ministers under Article 74, allowing little room for discretion.
He argued,
“In substance, this is not the president’s reference but the government’s,”
Adding that “issues are covered by a series of judgments.”
Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, representing the Tamil Nadu government, emphasized that there cannot be an “intra court appeal directly or indirectly through a reference under Article 143.”
Singhvi asserted,
“This court is being asked to change the contents and substance of a judgment between two different parties, which undermines institutional integrity. This is an appeal, however you choose to disguise it,”
Justice Narasimha remarked,
“The adjudicatory decision stands on complete footing rather than advisory. Show us one judgment where, in a division bench, a reference is not tenable.”
The CJI responded,
“We Will only be expressing our view on the law and not pronounce a judgment in the TN case”
The CJI indicated that the bench would first review the objections concerning the maintainability of the reference under Article 143 of the Constitution.
Attorney General R Venkataramani opposed the arguments put forth by Venugopal and Singhvi.
The matter is set to resume at 2 PM.
The Supreme Court, On July 22, noted that the issues raised in the presidential reference would impact the “entire country.” On April 8, the apex court issued a ruling regarding the powers of the governor concerning bills passed by the Tamil Nadu government. This verdict established, for the first time, that the president must decide on bills reserved for her consideration by the governor within three months of receiving such a reference.
In a five-page reference, President Murmu posed 14 questions to the Supreme Court, seeking clarification on the powers of the governor and president under Articles 200 and 201 in handling bills passed by state legislatures.
The ruling mandated that all governors must act on bills passed by state assemblies and clarified that governors do not have discretion under Article 200 regarding any bill presented to them; they must follow the advice of the council of ministers. It also stated that state governments can directly approach the Supreme Court if the president withholds assent on a bill sent by a governor for consideration.
Background
The Presidential Reference followed the April 8 Supreme Court ruling which held that Governors cannot indefinitely sit on Bills passed by State legislatures. Though Article 200 does not mention a deadline, the Court said Governors must act within a reasonable time and cannot stall the democratic process.
The Court also held that under Article 201, the President must decide on Bills within three months. If delayed, reasons must be recorded and conveyed to the concerned State.
The exact words of the April 8 judgment were:
“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.”
President Murmu later sent 14 questions to the Court, asking whether the judiciary could impose such deadlines and whether the concept of “deemed assent” was constitutionally valid.
While the Centre backs the Reference, arguing that Governors’ powers cannot be curtailed by judicial timelines, both Kerala and Tamil Nadu have asked the Court to dismiss it as not maintainable.
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Assent To Bills
Case Title: Re: Assent, Withholding, or Reservation of Bills by the Governor and President of India | SPL. REF. No. 1/2025 XVII-A
Read Attachment