The Supreme Court on Tuesday announced that it will begin hearing the Presidential reference concerning the powers and timelines for the President and State Governors to act on Bills passed by State legislatures from August 19, 2025. The matter, titled In Re: Assent, Withholding, or Reservation of Bills by the Governor and President of India, will be heard by a Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha, and Atul S Chandurkar.
Background: Presidential Reference under Article 143(1)
The reference has been made by President Droupadi Murmu under Article 143(1) of the Constitution, which empowers the President to seek the advisory opinion of the Supreme Court on questions of law or matters of public importance.
This referral challenges the Supreme Court’s April 8, 2025 ruling in the case filed by the State of Tamil Nadu, which laid down that:
- Governors must act on Bills within a reasonable time, despite Article 200 not specifying a deadline.
- The President must decide within three months under Article 201, and any delay must be explained and communicated to the State.
- The Governor’s inaction is subject to judicial review, and “deemed assent” may apply where there is undue delay.
The Presidential reference argues that these directions amount to judicial legislation and overstep the boundaries of judicial review.
Court Proceedings: Maintainability to be Heard First
During the hearing on Tuesday, the Bench directed all parties to file written submissions by August 12. The Court stated:
“Let parties file written submissions on or before August 12. For nodal counsels, we appoint Ms. Misha Rohatgi for the parties who are opposing the reference.”
It scheduled the hearings as follows:
- August 19, 20, 21, and 26: Hearings from parties opposing the reference.
- August 20, September 2, 3, and 9: Hearings from those supporting the reference.
The Bench made it clear that the Court will first examine the issue of maintainability, with the timetable to be followed strictly.
Objections to the Reference: Kerala and Tamil Nadu Lead Opposition
Senior Advocate KK Venugopal, appearing for the State of Kerala, questioned the maintainability of the reference:
“There are grounds for it to be returned and we question the maintainability.”
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, also opposing the reference, said:
“Ms. Misha Rohatgi will be nodal counsel from our side.”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, for the Union government, confirmed that:
“Mr. Aman Mehta will be the standing counsel at our end.”
Kerala and Tamil Nadu have formally submitted that the reference is essentially an appeal in disguise and not maintainable. They argue that the Supreme Court cannot sit in appeal over its own judgment, and that the reference should be returned unanswered.
Tamil Nadu has specifically pointed out that the reference seeks to reopen and overturn the Court’s earlier judgment without any legal basis, while Kerala has filed an application asking for the reference to be declared non-maintainable.
Key Legal Questions Raised in the Reference
The Presidential reference has raised fourteen questions, including:
- Whether the Court can prescribe timelines for assent when the Constitution is silent.
- Whether such directions amount to judicial overreach into the domain of the Executive.
- Whether the concept of “deemed assent” finds any place in the Constitution.
- Whether judicial directions on timelines upset the separation of powers between the legislature, executive, and judiciary.
The reference argues that the directions in the Tamil Nadu judgment risk altering the constitutional balance and grant the judiciary legislative authority, which was never intended by the framers.
