Droupadi Murmu, President of India.
A Five-judge Constitution Bench of Supreme Court to Hear Presidential Reference on Governor’s Assent to Bills: New Delhi, India – July 19, 2025 – The Supreme Court of India is set to hear a crucial Presidential Reference under Article 143 of the Constitution on July 22, addressing fundamental questions surrounding the grant of assent to Bills by Governors and the President. This significant hearing comes in the wake of the Supreme Court’s own judgment in the Tamil Nadu Governor’s case, which had imposed timelines for such decisions, sparking a constitutional debate.
A Constitution Bench of five judges will preside over the matter, comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, along with Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha, and AS Chandurkar. The reference by the President seeks clarity on several contentious issues that have emerged following the Court’s earlier pronouncements.
The genesis of this presidential intervention lies in the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Tamil Nadu case. In that judgment, a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan had asserted that a Governor cannot exercise a “pocket veto” over Bills passed by the legislative assembly.
The Court had set an upper limit of three months for the Governor’s decision and further stipulated that if a Bill is reserved by the Governor for the President’s assent, the President must also act within three months. The ruling also empowered State Governments to seek a writ of mandamus from the Court if these timelines were breached. Notably, the Supreme Court had even declared that ten Bills, which the Tamil Nadu Governor had kept pending for over a year, had received deemed assent.
Supreme Court of India.
READ: Supreme Court: Use of ‘May Be’ in Arbitration Clause Makes It a Non-Binding Agreement
This judgment, however, drew strong criticism, particularly from the Vice President, who questioned the Court’s authority to issue directions to the President. The Vice President went so far as to describe the Supreme Court’s power under Article 142 as a “nuclear missile” wielded by the judiciary.
One of the central questions posed in the President’s Reference is whether the Court possesses the judicial power to prescribe a timeline for the exercise of constitutional powers by the President and the Governor, especially in the absence of such a timeline explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.
READ: Supreme Court: Use of ‘May Be’ in Arbitration Clause Makes It a Non-Binding Agreement
The comprehensive list of questions raised in the Presidential Reference includes:
- What are the constitutional options available to a Governor when a Bill is presented under Article 200 of the Constitution?
- Is the Governor bound by the aid and advice tendered by the Council of Ministers while exercising all options under Article 200?
- Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the Governor under Article 200 justiciable?
- Does Article 361 of the Constitution present an absolute bar to judicial review concerning a Governor’s actions under Article 200?
- In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed time limit and manner of power exercise, can judicial orders impose timelines and prescribe the manner for powers under Article 200?
- Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the President under Article 201 justiciable?
- Similarly, in the absence of a constitutionally prescribed timeline and manner, can judicial orders impose timelines and prescribe the manner for the President’s discretion under Article 201?
- In light of the constitutional scheme, is the President required to seek the Supreme Court’s advice via a reference under Article 143 when a Governor reserves a Bill for assent?
- Are the decisions of the Governor and President under Articles 200 and 201, respectively, justiciable at a stage before the law comes into force? Is it permissible for Courts to judicially adjudicate on the contents of a Bill before it becomes law?
- Can the exercise of constitutional powers and orders by the President/Governor be substituted in any manner under Article 142 of the Constitution?
- Is a law made by the State legislature a law in force without the Governor’s assent granted under Article 200?
- In view of the proviso to Article 145(3), is it mandatory for any bench of this Court to first decide whether the question involved involves substantial questions of law regarding constitutional interpretation and refer it to a minimum five-judge bench?
- Are the Supreme Court’s powers under Article 142 limited to procedural law, or do they extend to issuing directions/passing orders contrary to or inconsistent with existing substantive or procedural constitutional provisions or law in force?
- Does the Constitution bar any other jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to resolve disputes between the Union Government and the State Governments except by way of a suit under Article 131?
READ: Supreme Court Imposes ₹10 Lakh Cost on Builder’s Agent for Filing FIR to Force Sale of Property
This upcoming hearing is anticipated to have far-reaching implications for the delicate balance of power between the judiciary, the executive, and the legislature, potentially redefining the scope of judicial review over constitutional functionaries.
