SC to commence hearing on Presidential Reference on state Bills assent deadlines from August 19

A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court will commence hearing from August 19 on the Presidential Reference to examine issues arising out of the top court’s recent verdict setting deadlines for assent to state Bills by governors and the President under Article 200 and Article 201 of the Constitution.

Headed by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, the Bench—also comprising Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar – assembled at 10.30 m on Tuesday to work out the modalities of the hearing.

The Bench appointed advocates Aman Mehta and Nisha Rohatgi as nodal counsel for the Union of India and the various parties opposing the Presidential Reference, respectively, to prepare the compilations of the documents filed. It asked both sides to file their written submissions by August 12.

It agreed to grant one hour first to the states of Kerala and Tamil Nadu to address it on their preliminary objections with regard to maintainability of the Presidential Reference. Thereafter, the Constitution Bench will hear the Attorney General and Union of India supporting the Presidential Reference on August 19, 20, 21 and 26, 2025.

Those opposing the Presidential Reference will be heard on August 28, September 2, 3 and 9, 2025 while rejoinder, if any, would be heard on September 10, 2025, the CJI said.

President Droupadi Murmu had in May sought the Supreme Court’s opinion on 14 questions arising out of its April 8 verdict fixing deadlines for governors and the President to take a call on Bills passed by state Assemblies. Murmu invoked Article 143 of the Constitution – a rarely used provision under which the President is empowered to consult the top court and seek its opinion on questions of law or fact.

The Supreme Court’s opinion on a Reference under Article 143 is not binding on the President and it’s not a binding law within the meaning of Article 141. It’s open to the top court to answer the reference or not. However, in case it does not want to answer the Reference, the court has to give reasons.

In an unprecedented verdict, a Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan had on April 8 held that the Governor can’t exercise a “pocket veto” over the Bills passed by the state assembly. It had restricted the President’s discretionary powers on Bills referred by Governors under Article 201 of the Constitution and set a three-month timeframe for her to decide on the bills reserved for her consideration. It set timelines for the Governor and the President in the grant of assent to the Bills under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution, respectively. In case of any breach of these timelines, state governments would be entitled to seek a writ of mandamus from a constitutional court, it had said.

The top court had set aside Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi’s decision to withhold assent for 10 Bills and reserving them to the President even after they were re-enacted by the state assembly, terming it “illegal and erroneous”.

Exercising its plenary power under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Bench had declared that the 10 Bills would be deemed to have received the Governor’s assent when they were presented to him for the second time after having been passed by the state legislature again.

Reserving a bill on grounds such as “personal dissatisfaction of the governor, political expediency or any other extraneous or irrelevant considerations” is strictly impermissible by the Constitution and would be liable to be set aside forthwith on that ground alone, the top court had said.

President Murmu has sought to know if in the absence of a constitutionally prescribed time limit, and the manner of exercise of powers by the Governor and the President under Articles 200 and 201 respectively, the Supreme Court could impose timelines on exercise of powers by the two constitutional functionaries.

The President has asked the Supreme Court to clarify if its powers under Article 142 were limited to matters of procedural law or extended to issuing directions or orders contrary to or inconsistent with the existing substantive or procedural provisions of the Constitution or any law in force.

She has also raised the issue of states approaching the top court under Article 32 meant for enforcement of fundamental rights and not under Article 131 which deals with the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction in a dispute between the Centre and one or more states; or a dispute between two or more states.

She sought to know of the Constitution Bar any other jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to resolve disputes between the Union Government and State Governments except by way of a suit under Article 131 of the Constitution.

Murmu has asked the Supreme Court to opine if the powers of governors and the President under Article 200 and 201 respectively with regard to assent to bills passed by state assemblies were justiciable and if Article 361 operated as absolute bar to judicial review in relation to the Governor’s actions under Article 200.

India