The Supreme Court has reserved its verdict on the presidential reference concerning the establishment of timelines for Governors and the President to grant assent to bills passed by state legislatures. This decision follows extensive hearings that began on August 19, 2025.
The reference was made by President Droupadi Murmu in May 2025, invoking Article 143(1) of the Constitution, which allows the President to seek the Supreme Court's advisory opinion on matters of constitutional importance. This action was taken after the Supreme Court's April 8 ruling, which addressed the role of Governors in handling bills passed by the Tamil Nadu Assembly and emphasized the necessity of constitutional accountability.
President Murmu's reference included 14 questions for the Supreme Court, seeking clarification on the extent of discretionary powers held by Governors and the President under Articles 200 and 201 when dealing with bills from state legislatures, and whether courts can set binding timelines for these actions.
A five-judge Constitution Bench, headed by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and including Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha, and A.S. Chandurkar, presided over the ten-day hearing. The proceedings concluded with submissions from Attorney General R. Venkataramani, who argued against the court fixing timelines for the President and Governor, and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, who also opposed the case presented by several opposition-ruled states. These states included Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Kerala, Karnataka, Telangana, Punjab, and Himachal Pradesh, all of which had resisted the reference.
During the hearing, the Supreme Court clarified that it would not be reviewing the Tamil Nadu Governor case but would focus on answering the constitutional questions raised. Several states, including Tamil Nadu, Kerala, West Bengal, and Punjab, had argued that the reference was not maintainable because the questions had already been answered in the Tamil Nadu Governor judgment.
