Today, On 2nd September, In the Presidential Reference hearing, CJI Gavai clarified that the Supreme Court will not decide the matter based on which political dispensation is in power or was in power, stressing focus only on constitutional interpretation.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court’s five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai is continuing the hearing of the Presidential Reference on whether fixed timelines can be imposed on Governors and the President for giving assent to State bills.
The matter is being heard under Article 143 of the Constitution, after the Court’s earlier ruling in April 2025 in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor.
The Supreme Court emphasized that its ruling on the Presidential reference regarding the powers of Governors over bills passed by State legislatures would be impartial, unaffected by the political party currently or previously in power.
A Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and including Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha, and Atul S Chandurkar, was addressing a reference made by President Droupadi Murmu under Article 143 of the Constitution.
This reference challenges the Court’s April decision, which established timelines for the President and the Governor to respond to bills.
CJI Gavai stated,
“We are not going to decide the matter on the basis of which political dispensation is in power or was in power,”
The Court made this comment during a debate between Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Tamil Nadu, and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, regarding instances where Governors have delayed assent to bills.
Singhvi mentioned,
“I have a chart here of Tamil Nadu and Kerala here …,”
SG Mehta countered, opposing the submission on its merits and asserting he had charts for other States.
Mehta remarked,
“If he wants to travel the dirty path, I have no difficulty. I am ready to travel that path as well but it is not necessary. It is a Presidential reference,”
In response, Singhvi replied,
“Mr Mehta, threats don’t work.”
Singhvi acknowledged Mehta’s list of other States with similar delays, while Mehta claimed to have data from 1947 about “how the Constitution was taken on a joyride.”
At this point, CJI Gavai noted that Articles 200 and 201 did not exist in 1947.
Mehta clarified that he was referring to the treatment of the Constitution since its inception.
“Your lordships have understood my reference… from the date the Constitution came into force, how the Constitution was treated with contempt.”
Singhvi replied,
“We all understand that you are threatening to show that all ills of governance are traceable to 1947. You need not say that.”
The Court then urged the counsel to focus on legal arguments.
CJI Gavai remarked,
“We don’t want this to be converted into a platform for political…,”
Singhvi continued, arguing that two wrongs do not make a right.
He asserted,
“That is the point he is missing. He says I have another chart; let him show that chart. He will be supporting my proposition,”
Singhvi concluded by stating that the Court considers the ‘lived realities and felt necessities’ of the timE
In May, President Droupadi Murmu exercised powers under Article 143(1) to seek clarification from the Supreme Court regarding whether judicial orders could impose timelines on the President’s discretion when dealing with state assembly bills.
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.
These are the 14 key questions raised by the President:
- “What are the constitutional options before a governor when a bill is presented to him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?”
- “Is Governor bound by the aid and advice of the council of ministers while exercising all the options available with him when a bill is presented before him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?”
- “Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India justiciable?”
- “Is Article 361 of the Constitution of India an absolute bar to judicially review in relation to the actions of Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?”
- “In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed time limit and the manner of exercise of powers by Governor, can timelines be imposed and the manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of all powers under Article 200 of the Constitution of India by Governor?”
- “Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by President under Article 201 of the Constitution of India justiciable?”
- “In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed timeline and the manner of exercise of powers by President, can timelines be imposed and the manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of discretion by President under Article 201 of the Constitution of India?”
- “In light of the constitutional scheme governing the powers of President, is President required to seek advice of the Supreme Court by way of a reference under Article 143 of the Constitution of India and take the opinion of the Supreme Court when Governor reserves a bill for President’s assent or otherwise?”
- “Are decisions of Governor and President under Article 200 and Article 201 of the Constitution of India, respectively, justiciable at a stage anterior into the law coming into force? Is it permissible for the courts to undertake judicial adjudication over the contents of a bill, in any manner, before it becomes law?”
- “Can the exercise of constitutional powers and the orders of/by President/Governor be substituted in any manner under Article 142 of the Constitution of India?”
- “Is a law made by the state legislature a law in force without the assent of Governor granted under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?”
- “In view of the proviso to Article 145 of the Constitution of India, is it not mandatory for any bench of this court to first decide as to whether the question involved in the proceedings before it is of such a nature which involves substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of Constitution and to refer it to a bench of minimum five judges?”
- “… the powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India limited to matters of procedural law or Article 142 of the Constitution of India extends to issuing directions/passing orders which are contrary to or inconsistent with existing substantive or procedural provisions of the Constitution or law in force?”
- “Does the Constitution bar any other jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to resolve disputes between the Union government and the state governments except by way of a suit under Article 131 of the Constitution of India?”
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- Questions referred by the President under Article 143 of the Constitution
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Assent To Bills