The Supreme Court of India is currently examining a presidential reference concerning the timelines for presidential and gubernatorial assent to bills passed by state legislatures. A Constitution Bench, presided over by Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai, clarified on Tuesday, August 19, 2025, that the court is operating within its advisory jurisdiction and not as an appellate body. This distinction is crucial as it means the court will offer its legal opinion on the matter without overturning previous judgments.
The presidential reference was triggered by an April ruling of the Supreme Court that prescribed timelines for Governors and the President to decide on bills. That ruling came in response to a case filed by the State of Tamil Nadu against its Governor. The court had then stated that the absence of a time limit for Governors to act on bills could not be interpreted as allowing indefinite delays. The Supreme Court had also made references to the constitutions of Pakistan and the United States, noting that some countries have provisions for deemed assent if no action is taken within a specified time.
During the hearing, the CJI addressed concerns raised by the states of Kerala and Tamil Nadu, assuring them that the court's focus was on expressing a view on the law, not on the specifics of the Tamil Nadu case. Justice Surya Kant, also part of the five-member bench, emphasized that while the court could opine that a certain judgment does not lay down the correct law, it would not overrule the judgment itself.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the central government, argued that the present case is unique and that the court possesses the authority to even overrule a judgment within its advisory jurisdiction. Attorney General R. Venkataramani questioned the earlier Supreme Court ruling that set timelines for presidential and gubernatorial assent.
The court has raised questions regarding the delay in Governors clearing bills passed by state assemblies, with some bills pending since 2020. The Centre, in its written submission, argued that imposing fixed timelines on Governors and the President would disrupt the constitutional balance and lead to "constitutional disorder". They emphasized that Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution, which outline the courses of action for the President and Governors regarding bills, deliberately do not contain timelines.
Several senior advocates raised preliminary objections to the maintainability of the reference, arguing that the questions raised were already answered in the Tamil Nadu Governor case. They contended that the advisory jurisdiction under Article 143 should not be used to revisit issues already decided in a judgment. It was also argued that the presidential reference was essentially a reference by the Union Government.
The Supreme Court's role in this matter is to offer clarity on the constitutional questions raised by the President, specifically regarding the extent to which the court can prescribe timelines for constitutional functionaries. The outcome of this reference could have significant implications for the relationship between the Union and the states, as well as the functioning of the legislative process. The hearing is set to continue.
