The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its verdict on a presidential reference seeking clarity on whether constitutional courts can impose timelines for governors and the President to give assent to bills passed by state legislatures.
A five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, and comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha, and A.S. Chandurkar, reserved the matter after ten days of marathon hearings that began on August 19.
The proceedings concluded with Attorney General R. Venkataramani, the country’s top law officer, finishing his submissions. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta also argued on behalf of the Centre, strongly opposing the case made out by opposition-ruled states, including Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Kerala, Karnataka, Telangana, Punjab, and Himachal Pradesh, all of which had resisted the reference.
The reference stemmed from President Droupadi Murmu’s May 2025 decision to invoke Article 143(1) of the Constitution, which empowers the President to seek the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion on questions of constitutional importance.
Her move came in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s April 8 judgment concerning the role of Governors in dealing with bills passed by the Tamil Nadu Assembly. In that ruling, the court had criticized delays in gubernatorial assent and underlined the need for constitutional accountability.
In a five-page reference, the President posed 14 questions to the Supreme Court, seeking clarity on the extent of discretion Governors and the President hold under Articles 200 and 201 when dealing with bills passed by state legislatures, and whether courts could prescribe binding timelines for such actions.
The Centre, represented by Solicitor General Mehta, maintained that judicially imposed deadlines would amount to interference with the executive’s constitutional discretion. On the other hand, states opposing the reference contended that prolonged inaction by Governors and the President undermines the legislative process and creates constitutional deadlock.
Chief Justice Gavai observed during the course of hearings that the questions raised go to the “very heart of the federal structure” and would have far-reaching implications for the relationship between the executive and legislature.
With arguments now concluded, the Constitution Bench will deliver its opinion in due course. The ruling is expected to provide crucial clarity on the delicate balance of powers between legislatures, Governors, and the President — a recurring flashpoint in Centre-state relations.
