BREAKING| Supreme Court Issues Notice To Union & All States On President's Reference On Timelines For Bills' Assent

The Supreme Court today(July 22) issued notice to the Union Government and all the State Governments on the Presidential Reference made by President Droupadi Murmu concerning the powers of the Governor and the President under Article 200 and 201 of the Constitution, respectively, concerning power to assent on Bills.

A Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and comprising Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar posted the matter for next Tuesday for the appearances of the respondents. CJI BR Gavai said that the Court was proposing to hear the matter in August.

Attorney General for India R Venkataramani was requested by the Bench to assist the Court. Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta stated that he will be appearing for the Union of India and waived the notice for the Union.

Senior Advocate KK Venugopal, for the State of Kerala, said that the State would raise an issue regarding the maintainability of the Reference. Senior Advocate P Wilson, for the State of Tamil Nadu, said that the issues in the Reference are already covered by the judgment in the Tamil Nadu Governor's case. Wilson added that Tamil Nadu would also be raising the issue of maintainability.

The President made the reference following the Supreme Court's judgment in the Tamil Nadu Governor's case which set time lines for the Governor and the President to grant assent to the Bills as per Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution, respectively.

In the Tamil Nadu case, a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan held that the Governor cannot exercise a “pocket veto” over the Bills passed by the legislative assembly, and fixed an upper limit of three months for the Governor's decision. If the Bill is reserved by the Governor for the President's assent, the President must act within 3 months, the Court further ruled.

The Court also stated that if there is any breach of the timelines, the State Government would be entitled to seek a writ of mandamus from the Court. Allowing a petition filed by the State of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court also declared that the ten bills, which the Governor had kept pending for over a year, had received deemed assent.

The Judgment was severely criticised by former Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar, who questioned whether the Court has the power to issue a direction to the President. The Vice President even went to the extent of calling Article 142 power a "nuclear missile" with the judiciary. One of the questions raised in the President's Reference is whether the Court can judicially prescribe a timeline for the exercise of constitutional powers by the President and the Governor.

Notably, the bench of Justice Narasimha and Justice Chandurkar is also hearing the Kerala Governor matter, which the Kerala State Government says is covered by the Tamil Nadu judgment. Whereas, the Union opposes this plea and has argued that the judgment does not cover the Kerala Governor matter and moreover, the Court could wait till the Presidential Reference is heard.

What are the questions raised by the President?

1. What are the constitutional options before a Governor when a Bill is presented to him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?

2. Is the Governor bound by the aid & advice tendered by 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?

3. Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India justiciable?

4. Is Article 361 of the Constitution of India an absolute bar to the judicial review in relation to the actions of a Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?

5. In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed time limit, and the manner of exercise of powers by the 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 the Governor?

6. Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the President under Article 201 of the Constitution of India justiciable?

7. In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed timeline and the manner of exercise of powers by the President, can timelines be imposed and the manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of discretion by the President under Article 201 of the Constitution of India?

8. In light of the constitutional scheme governing the powers of the President, is the 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 the Governor reserves a Bill for the President's assent or otherwise?

9. Are the decisions of the Governor and the 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?

10. Can the exercise of constitutional powers and the orders of/by the President / Governor be substituted in any manner under Article 142 of the Constitution of India?

11. Is a law made by the State legislature a law in force without the assent of the Governor granted under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?

12. In view of the proviso to Article 145(3) of the Constitution of India, is it not mandatory for any bench of this Hon'ble 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?

13. Do 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?

14. 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 Details: IN RE : ASSENT, WITHHOLDING OR RESERVATION OF BILLS BY THE GOVERNOR AND THE PRESIDENT OF INDIA|SPL.REF. No. 1/2025