Read how India’s Supreme Court hears the landmark presidential reference, debating whether the president and governors should face time limits for deciding on state bills. Get the latest updates on arguments, legal implications, and what this means for governance in India.
Presidential Reference: Supreme Court Reserves Verdict On Timelines For President & Governors To Act On Bills
New Delhi, September 11, 2025:The Supreme Court’s five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai has reserved its verdict on the Presidential Reference under Article 143(1) seeking clarity on whether courts can prescribe timelines for the President and Governors to act on bills. The Bench heard the matter for 10 days before reserving judgment.
What exactly happened today?
The Bench—CJI BR Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha, and AS Chandurkar—completed arguments and reserved its opinion. The hearing began on August 19 and concluded today after extensive submissions from the Union and multiple states.
What is this presidential reference about?
Invoked by President Droupadi Murmu under Article 143(1), the reference poses 14 questions on the scope of judicial power to set procedures and timelines under Articles 200 and 201 (Governor/President assent). The Court has repeatedly said it will confine itself to the questions asked and is not sitting in appeal over any earlier ruling.
The backdrop: the Tamil Nadu bills ruling
In April 2025, a two-judge bench dealing with 10 Tamil Nadu bills laid down timelines for gubernatorial and presidential action; several of those bills were treated as law from the date they were presented to the governor. That ruling set the stage for today’s reference on whether courts may prescribe such timelines.
Centre’s position
Appearing for the Union, Attorney General R. Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the Constitution does not fix timelines in Articles 200/201, so courts cannot read them in; doing so would effectively amend the Constitution and breach separation of powers. They also pointed to Article 361 protections and questioned the maintainability routes for states (Articles 131 vs. 32). At the same time, the Centre has stated governors cannot sit on bills indefinitely, but rigid court-made timelines are impermissible.
States’ position
Represented by senior counsel for West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka, and Punjab, the states contended that governors must act on cabinet advice, cannot hold bills indefinitely, may return a bill once, and if a legislature re-passes it, assent should follow. The States supported judicial intervention to prevent constitutional stasis.
Signals from the Bench
Through the hearings, the Court underscored that it would answer only the reference questions, not re-litigate April’s ruling; it also tested both sides on whether isolated delays can justify blanket timelines and what remedy exists when bills remain stalled.
What’s next?
The Court is likely to deliver its opinion within two months, before CJI Gavai’s retirement on November 23, 2025. The advisory opinion could recalibrate Center–State relations by clarifying how far courts can go in enforcing timely action on bills without undermining constitutional discretion.
Why this matters (in 5 points)
- Governance certainty: Timelines (if upheld) could end the long pendency of state bills.
- Separation of powers: The Court must balance judicial enforceability with executive discretion.
- Federalism: The decision affects how states navigate gubernatorial reservations and presidential assent.
- Litigation pathways: It may clarify whether states can seek relief under Art. 32 or must use Art. 131.
- Political stability: Clear rules reduce tussles between elected governments and Raj Bhavans.
FAQs
Q1. What is a presidential reference under Article 143(1)?
It allows the president to seek the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion on questions of law or public importance. The court is currently answering 14 questions related to bill-assent timelines.
Q2. Did the Court already impose timelines in a past case?
Yes. In April 2025, while dealing with Tamil Nadu’s pending bills, the Supreme Court set timelines and expanded review over gubernatorial action; that prompted today’s reference on the limits of such judicial directions.
Q3. Is the Court reviewing the earlier two-judge ruling now?
No. The Constitution Bench has said it will not sit in appeal over that ruling and will answer only the questions posed in the reference.