The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice to the Union government and all State governments, on a Presidential reference seeking clarity on whether courts can prescribe timelines for the President and State Governors to act on Bills passed by State legislatures.
Digital arrest scams under SC lens: MHA forms high-level panel, seeks time to finalise action plan. (File Photo: IANS)
The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice to the Union government and all State governments, on a Presidential reference seeking clarity on whether courts can prescribe timelines for the President and State Governors to act on Bills passed by State legislatures.
Having issued the notice, a five-judge Constitution bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai, Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, and Atul S Chandurkar posted the matter for further hearing on July 29. It also asked Attorney General R Venkataramani to assist the court in the matter.
Advertisement
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta will represent the Central government in the hearing of the reference by President Droupadi Murmu invoking powers under Article 143(1) of the Constitution of India.
Advertisement
“There are issues of interpretation of the Constitution. We have requested the learned Attorney General to assist us. Issue notice to the Union and all state governments. The Learned Solicitor General will appear for the Union. All State governments be served through email. List it next Tuesday. Notice be also served to all standing counsels,” the Court said in its order.
The Presidential reference—titled “In Re: Assent, Withholding, or Reservation of Bills by the Governor and President of India”—invokes Article 143(1) of the Constitution, providing for the President to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion on questions of law or fact of public importance that have arisen, or likely to arise.
The reference stems from the Supreme Court’s April 8, 2025 ruling, which laid down timelines for both Governors (Article 200) and the President (Article 201) to decide on Bills passed by State legislatures.
The top court bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, by April 8, 2025, in a landmark judgment, had ruled that Governors cannot delay assent indefinitely, despite the absence of a prescribed timeline under Article 200. The President must act on reserved Bills within 3 months of receipt from the Governor under Article 201. Any further delay must be explained and conveyed to the State concerned.
Other key conclusions of the April 8 judgment were that there was no concept of ‘pocket veto’ (inaction by Governor sitting on the bill) nor that of ‘absolute veto’ within the constitutional scheme and mechanism envisaged under Article 200 of the Constitution.
There is no scope of inaction, and whenever a bill is presented to the Governor, he is under a Constitutional obligation to adopt one of the three courses of action available therein – either to give the assent or withhold the assent and return it for reconsideration by the State legislature or, alternately, reserve the bill for the consideration of the President.
It further said that once the Governor exercises the option of withholding assent, he is under an obligation to follow the procedure prescribed in the first proviso of Article 200, saying “as soon as possible” return the bill to the State legislature with a message for reconsideration.
For this, the top court gave the Governor a time limit of three months.
The Governor has no option but to give assent to the bill presented to him after reconsideration by the State legislature. The court fixed the time limit of one month for giving assent to the represented bill.
The top court had said, “Any other reading of Article 200 that allows indefinite inaction would thwart the legislative machinery and the will of the people.”
On May 15, 2025, reference President Droupadi Murmu flagged 14 constitutional questions arising from the April 8 judgment.
This question included; Can the judiciary impose time-bound mandates on the President and Governors for assenting to Bills? Does the Constitution envisage “deemed assent” in case of delay? Can Articles 200 and 201 be interpreted to permit judicial scrutiny or mandates?
The reference states that the Constitution provides no such express power to the judiciary and that the judgment created a mechanism that infringes upon executive discretion.
During today’s hearing, Senior Advocate KK Venugopal (for Kerala) and Senior Advocate P Wilson (for Tamil Nadu) opposed the reference, questioning its maintainability. Senior Advocate Wilson said that all 14 questions raised in the Presidential reference have already been answered by the Supreme Court in its various earlier judgments, including the April 8, 2025, judgment in the Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi case.
Advertisement
