SC Starts Hearing On Presidential Reference On Timeline For Assent To Bills

Supreme Court of India

The Supreme Court on Tuesday began hearing the Presidential Reference that seeks clarity on whether the judiciary can mandate timelines for Governors and the President while dealing with bills passed by state assemblies.

The matter has raised key constitutional questions, impacting the delicate balance of powers among the executive, legislature, and judiciary.

Five-Judge Bench To Examine The Reference

A Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice BR Gavai, along with Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha, and A S Chandurkar, took up the matter. The bench allowed the state governments of Kerala and Tamil Nadu to challenge the maintainability of the Presidential Reference.

“We will hear preliminary objections for half an hour. Thereafter, we will start hearing submissions from the Attorney General,” CJI Gavai clarified at the outset.

Following the objections, Attorney General R Venkataramani is scheduled to present the Centre’s arguments.

Kerala Opposes The Reference

Senior advocate KK Venugopal, representing the Kerala government, opposed the Presidential Reference, arguing that the Governor’s powers under Article 200 have already been interpreted by the Supreme Court in several judgments.

He pointed out that for the first time, in the Tamil Nadu versus Governor case, a fixed deadline was prescribed for a Governor to decide on Assembly-passed bills. Venugopal stressed that the matter is already well-settled and does not require fresh examination.

Centre Warns Of “Constitutional Disorder”

The Centre, in its written submission, strongly opposed imposing judicially fixed timelines on Governors and the President. It argued that such directions would amount to one organ of the government assuming powers not vested in it by the Constitution.

The submission stated that timelines could disturb the “delicate equilibrium” created by the Constitution and result in “constitutional disorder” while undermining the rule of law.

On July 29, the Supreme Court had fixed a timetable for the proceedings. States and the Centre supporting the Presidential Reference will be heard on August 19, 20, 21, and 26. States opposing it will present their case on August 28, September 2, 3, and 9. Any rejoinders, if necessary, will be heard on September 10.

Earlier, on July 22, the top court had remarked that the questions raised in this reference have implications for the “entire country.”

Why The Reference Was Made

The matter traces back to May, when President Droupadi Murmu invoked Article 143(1) of the Constitution to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion on whether timelines can be mandated for Governors and the President while considering state bills.

Her decision followed the Court’s April 8 verdict in the Tamil Nadu case, where, for the first time, a three-month deadline was set for the President to act on bills reserved for her consideration by a Governor.

In her five-page reference, President Murmu posed 14 questions to the Supreme Court, focusing on the powers of Governors and the President under Articles 200 and 201.

April 8 Verdict At The Core

In its April 8 ruling, the Supreme Court held that Governors cannot exercise discretion under Article 200 and must act in accordance with the advice of the Council of Ministers. It further directed that all Governors must act within prescribed timelines, thereby limiting indefinite delays.

The verdict also opened the door for state governments to directly approach the Supreme Court if the President withholds assent on a bill referred by a Governor.

Court’s decision on the Presidential Reference will not only determine the validity of such judicial timelines but could also redefine the role of Governors and the President in India’s legislative process.