SC to hear Presidential Reference from August 19, starting with Tamil Nadu and Kerala on maintainability

The Supreme Court on Tuesday fixed August 19 as the start date for hearing the Presidential Reference concerning the judiciary’s power to prescribe timelines for the President and Governors when dealing with Bills passed by State legislatures.

A five-judge Constitution Bench stated it would first hear Tamil Nadu and Kerala on the preliminary issue of maintainability, after both States argued that the Reference amounts to an “appeal in disguise” against the Court’s April 8 judgment.

Advertisement

The Bench, comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar, said the hearing would begin with Tamil Nadu and Kerala, represented by senior advocates K.K. Venugopal, A.M. Singhvi, and P. Wilson, who have been granted one hour to argue why the Reference should be returned unanswered.

Senior advocate K.K. Venugopal, appearing for Kerala, emphasized that the issue of maintainability must be decided before hearing the Centre’s arguments on the merits of the Reference. “A preliminary hearing should be held on the maintainability of the Reference. This should be done first,” he submitted.

Attorney General R. Venkataramani, appearing for the Union Government, agreed that the States should be fully heard before he presents arguments in support of the Reference. The Bench accepted this sequencing and directed all parties to submit their written submissions by August 12.

According to the Court’s schedule, the Union Government will be heard on August 19, 20, 21, and 26. Responses from the States and other opposing parties will be heard on August 28 and September 2, 3, and 9. The Centre will have a final opportunity to present its rebuttal on September 10.

“Timelines must be followed scrupulously,” Chief Justice Gavai told the lawyers.

In a procedural clarification, the Court directed that no lawyer—except Mr. Venugopal—would be permitted to appear online.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta supported the exception, describing Mr. Venugopal as “sui generis” (unique).

Tamil Nadu and Kerala have urged the Court to dismiss the Presidential Reference outright, contending that it violates the limits of Article 143 of the Constitution, which governs the Supreme Court’s advisory jurisdiction. Kerala, represented by Venugopal and C.K. Sasi, argued that such a Reference can be made only if the legal question is undecided or res integra.

However, the States submitted that the constitutional questions raised in the present Reference—pertaining to the powers of the President and Governors under Articles 200 and 201—have already been settled by the Court.

Kerala cited past precedents, including the 1993 Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal Reference, to argue that once the Supreme Court delivers an authoritative ruling, the same issue cannot be reopened through Article 143.

It pointed out that three separate Constitution Bench judgments—including the April 8, 2025 ruling in the Tamil Nadu Governor case authored by Justice J.B. Pardiwala—have already settled the legal position on timelines for constitutional authorities dealing with State legislation.

“When the Supreme Court, in its adjudicatory jurisdiction, pronounces its authoritative opinion on a question of law, it cannot be said that there is any doubt about the question or that it remains undecided so as to warrant Presidential clarification,” Kerala submitted.

The State further argued that if the Union Government disagreed with the April 8 ruling, it should have filed a review or curative petition, rather than routing its grievance through a Presidential Reference—which is intended to resolve genuine legal ambiguities, not to reopen final judgments.

The Presidential Reference, made on May 15, 2025, raises the question of whether the Court exceeded its jurisdiction by prescribing timelines for the President and Governors to act on State Bills, and whether the concept of “deemed assent” violates the doctrine of separation of powers.

The Union Government has defended the Reference, asserting that the judiciary’s intervention encroached on the constitutional functions of the executive.