The Supreme Court said on Tuesday that the Presidential reference case on timelines and procedures for the President and State Governors when considering Bills passed by State legislatures, will be heard from August 19 [In Re: Assent, Withholding, or Reservation of Bills by the Governor and President of India] .
A Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Atul S Chandurkar asked all parties to submit their written submissions by August 12.
“Let parties file written submissions on or before August 12. For Nodal counsels for Union and all other parties, we appoint Misha Rohatgi for the parties who are opposing the reference. We will start hearing on August 19,” the Court said.
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,” he said.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal also opposed the reference.
“Ms. Misha Rohatgi will be nodal counsel from our side,” he said.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Central government, said,
“Mr. Aman Mehta will be the standing counsel at our end.”
The Court eventually posted the matter for hearing on August 19 and said that it will hear on the aspect of maintainability first.
“We will hear parties on maintainability first. The ones opposing shall be heard in 19, 20, 21 and 26 August. Supporting the reference will be heard on August 20, Sept 2, 3 and 9. Time schedule will be strictly followed. Let parties complete arguments as prescribed,” the Court said.
CJI BR Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice PS Narasimha, and Justice Atul S ChandurkarThe Bench was constituted to decide the reference made by President Droupadi Murmu under Article 143(1) of the Constitution, which allows the President to seek the Court’s opinion on questions of law or matters of public importance.
The Presidential reference challenges the top court’s which prescribed timelines for the President and the Governor to decide on Bills and also held that the Governor’s inaction under Article 200 was subject to judicial review.
The reference was triggered by the Supreme Court’s judgment of April 8 in a case filed by the State of Tamil Nadu against the Governor.
In the judgment, the apex court ruled that the absence of a time limit under Article 200 to decide on bills passed by the State legislature could not be interpreted to allow indefinite delay.
A Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan held that the Governor must act within a reasonable time and that constitutional silence could not be used to stall the democratic process.
The Court held that although Article 200 does not specify any time limit, it cannot be interpreted to allow indefinite delay by the Governor in acting on Bills passed by the State legislature.
“Though no timeline is prescribed under Article 200, the same cannot be construed as conferring untrammeled discretion on the Governor to withhold action on Bills presented by the State legislature,” the bench said while laying down timelines for the Governor to act.
Senior Advocate KK VenugopalWith regard to the President’s powers under Article 201, the Court held that her decision-making is not beyond judicial scrutiny and must occur within three months. If there is any delay beyond that period, reasons must be recorded and communicated to the concerned State.
“The President is required to take a decision on the Bills within a period of three months from the date on which such reference is received and in case of any delay beyond this period, appropriate reasons would have to be recorded and conveyed to the concerned State,” the judgment said.
Following the ruling, President Murmu referred to the Supreme Court, raising constitutional concerns about the Court’s interpretation of Articles 200 and 201. The reference argued that neither Article contains any express provision empowering the Court to prescribe deadlines, and that the notion of “deemed assent” in the event of delay is not contemplated by the Constitution.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Senior Advocate Kapil SibalThe reference objected to the Supreme Court’s ruling that introduced the concept of “deemed assent” if the President or Governor failed to act on a Bill within a prescribed time. The reference argued that such a concept was contrary to the constitutional framework.
The President’s questions are understood to include whether the Supreme Court can effectively legislate a procedure where the Constitution is silent, and whether timelines for assent encroach upon the discretionary domain of constitutional functionaries.
The reference also underscored that legislative functions are separate from judicial powers, and that directions of the kind issued in the Tamil Nadu Governor’s judgment risk upsetting the balance between the three branches of government.
Both Kerala and Tamil Nadu have opposed the reference as not maintainable.
According to , the reference is an appeal in the disguise of a reference and it should be returned by the Court unanswered since the Supreme Court cannot sit in appeal over its judgments.
The State of Kerala too had to declare the Presidential reference as not maintainable.
[Read Live Coverage]