The Supreme Court Constitution Bench Today (Aug 19) is hearing President Murmu’s reference on time limits for Governors to act on Bills. Kerala and Tamil Nadu oppose it, while the Centre backs it, leading to sharp legal exchanges.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court Constitution Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Atul S Chandurkar is hearing the Presidential Reference on timelines for Governors and the President in clearing State Bills.
The matter arises after President Droupadi Murmu, under Article 143(1), asked the top court for its opinion on the interpretation of Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution.
This comes after the Supreme Court’s April 8 ruling in the Tamil Nadu Governor case, where the Court held that Governors and the President cannot sit indefinitely on Bills and must act within a reasonable time.
CJI Gavai raised a pointed question at the beginning:
“What’s wrong in President seeking a Presidential Reference?”
He asked why there should be objections at all to the President referring the issue to a five-judge Bench.
The CJI also wondered whether senior lawyer K.K. Venugopal was serious about his preliminary objections, describing them as “hyper-technical.”
He pressed further, asking how Venugopal planned to overcome the Article 145(3) argument, especially when the Attorney General (AG) had already told the Court he wanted the matter to go before a five-judge Bench in the Tamil Nadu case.
Kerala and Tamil Nadu’s Objections
Attorney General R. Venkataramani said he wanted to first give some introductory remarks.
But the CJI noted that senior advocate K.K. Venugopal, appearing for Kerala, wished to object to the maintainability of the reference.
Senior advocate Wilson, appearing for Tamil Nadu, also wanted to raise objections.
The CJI allowed half an hour for preliminary objections.
Venugopal’s Argument: Time Limits Already Settled
Venugopal submitted that the Presidential Reference was unnecessary since the April 8 judgment had already clarified everything. He said the Court had settled how the phrase “as soon as possible” in Article 200 should be read in cases from Telangana, Punjab, and Tamil Nadu.
That ruling had already fixed reasonable timelines.
According to him, the Reference wrongly claimed no such limits existed. Venugopal insisted: under Article 141, that judgment was binding law.
He also stressed that the Centre had never specifically asked for such a reference under Article 145(3). But the Attorney General strongly denied this, saying he had in fact asked, and that was recorded in the April 8 judgment.
“Reference Bench cannot touch binding SC judgment”
Venugopal was clear: once the Supreme Court has settled a question of law, another Bench cannot reopen it through a reference. He explained that the current Reference was effectively asking one Bench to sit in judgment over another, which is not possible.
He argued firmly:
“A Reference Bench cannot touch a binding judgment of the SC.”
He said the April 8 ruling in the Tamil Nadu case was binding law and could not be overturned through this route.
Venugopal accused the Centre of trying to do indirectly what it could not do directly:
“This is Centre’s attempt to overturn a binding judgment.”
He pointed out that the Union government had not filed either a review petition or a curative petition against the April 8 verdict. The Reference, he said, was simply an attempt to bypass proper procedure.
He reminded the Court that under Article 143, a Presidential Reference only gives an advisory opinion. Such an opinion cannot replace or undo a binding judgment.
Tamil Nadu’s Stand: No Review via Reference
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Tamil Nadu, said the entire exercise was an attempt to reopen a case that had already been decided. He argued: all the questions in the Presidential Reference were already covered in the April 8 ruling.
He said the Supreme Court has no intra-court appeal, so a Reference cannot be used as a substitute for a review or curative petition. According to him, the Centre was trying to change settled law retrospectively, which was not permissible.
Singhvi stressed:
“An SC judgment cannot be changed unless through a review or a curative.”
Judges Push Back
Justice Surya Kant asked Singhvi how exactly the Presidential Reference would affect the April 8 judgment. He said the Bench would only check whether the questions had already been answered.
The CJI asked Singhvi if he was effectively arguing that once the Supreme Court gives a judgment, “everything stops.”
Justice Kant also clarified that the Reference Bench was only acting in its advisory role. But Singhvi insisted that even an advisory opinion would impact the law.
Justice Vikram Nath asked Singhvi why he assumed that the Reference Bench would contradict the April 8 ruling at all. The CJI assured that the Reference Bench was not concerned with the Tamil Nadu judgment, but Singhvi maintained that the two were in fact connected.
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.
LAST HEARING IN APEX COURT
The Supreme Court of India on July 22 agreed to look into 14 important questions asked by President Droupadi Murmu. These questions are related to the role and responsibilities of the Governors and the President when state assemblies send them bills to approve.
These doubts come after the Supreme Court gave a decision on April 8, where it clearly set time limits for Governors and the President to take action on such bills.
A five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice B R Gavai and including Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha, and A S Chandurkar will now handle the matter.
The timeline for the hearing will be set on July 29, and the main hearing is expected to begin in mid-August.
President Droupadi Murmu used her special power under Article 143 of the Indian Constitution, which allows her to ask the Supreme Court for its opinion on important legal questions.
“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.”
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?”
These queries came after the Supreme Court’s April 8 judgment, where it firmly said that Governors do not have independent power while dealing with bills under Article 200. They must act according to the advice of the state government’s council of ministers.
In that judgment, the Court also said that if the President withholds assent to a bill (which the Governor has forwarded), the state government can directly approach the Supreme Court.
The Court said clearly that actions like “personal dissatisfaction of Governor, political expediency or any other extraneous or irrelevant considerations” were not allowed under the Constitution. The bench warned that such behavior would be “liable to be set aside forthwith on that ground alone.”
Background of the Case
On 13 May 2025, President Droupadi Murmu invoked the Supreme Court’s advisory jurisdiction under Article 143 of the Indian Constitution. This article empowers the President of India to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion on matters of public importance involving legal or factual questions.
The reference includes 14 questions concerning the constitutional powers of the Governor and the President under Articles 200 and 201, particularly in relation to granting or withholding assent to state legislation. This significant constitutional development comes after the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025).
Tamil Nadu Governor Case: A Constitutional Milestone
In 2023, the Tamil Nadu government approached the Supreme Court to challenge the indefinite delay by Governor R.N. Ravi in giving assent to 10 bills passed by the State Assembly. After repeated non-communication, the assembly re-passed the bills, which were later reserved for Presidential consideration.
On 8 April 2025, the Supreme Court of India ruled that the Governor’s delay was “illegal” and “erroneous.”
The Court interpreted Article 200 and clarified that the Governor’s powers are restricted to:
- Granting assent,
- Withholding assent,
- Reserving the bill for the President’s consideration.
Importantly, the Court emphasized that once a bill is re-enacted by the state legislature, the Governor must grant assent, and cannot exercise an absolute veto.
Judicial Timelines and Accountability Introduced
The judgment established strict timelines for the Governor and the President:
- Within 1 month: If withholding or reserving a bill on the advice of the Council of Ministers.
- Within 3 months: If done against ministerial advice.
- Within 1 month: If the State Assembly re-passes the bill.
A 3-month deadline was also laid down for the President’s decision under Article 201. Any violation of these timelines is now subject to judicial review, enhancing transparency and accountability in the constitutional process.
The Court, invoking Article 142, went a step further to deem assent on the 10 pending bills, effectively nullifying the President’s prior assent to one of them. While the ruling was hailed for upholding legislative efficiency, critics raised concerns over a potential breach of the doctrine of separation of powers.
Presidential Reference Under Article 143: Seeking Clarity
In the wake of this ruling, President Murmu sent a formal reference to the Chief Justice of India, raising constitutional questions such as:
- Is judicial intervention valid when Articles 200 and 201 don’t prescribe timelines?
- Can the Governor or the President’s discretion under these articles be subject to judicial review?
- Does the Supreme Court have the authority to “deem assent”?
This marks a significant step in clarifying the scope of constitutional discretion and the role of judicial oversight in executive functions.
CASE TITLE:
Re: Assent, Withholding, or Reservation of Bills by the Governor and President of India
SPL.REF. No. 1/2025 XVII-A
READ- Questions referred by the President under Article 143 of the Constitution
READ- Judgement of the Supreme Court in The State of Tamil Nadu v Governor of Tamil Nadu
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on CJI BR Gavai
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Assent To Bills
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
