SC issues notice to GoI, states on Presidential reference over Governor’s role in bills

The Supreme Court on Tuesday formally issued notices to the government of India and all states regarding a Presidential reference that seeks clarity on whether the court can set timelines and procedures for the President and state governors when deciding on bills passed by state legislatures.

The matter is being heard by a Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha, and Atul S Chandurkar. The Court has requested Attorney General R Venkataramani to assist in the case, which involves constitutional interpretation. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta will represent the GoI.

The Court noted that important constitutional questions were involved and directed that notice be served to all States and standing counsels via email. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on Tuesday, July 29.

The reference, made by President Droupadi Murmu under Article 143(1) of the Constitution, questions the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling that set time limits for the President and Governors to act on Bills and held that a Governor’s inaction under Article 200 is subject to judicial review. That judgment came in response to a case filed by the Tamil Nadu government, where the Court had emphasised that constitutional silence on timeframes cannot justify indefinite delays in approving State legislation.

In that ruling, the Court had observed that while Article 200 does not mention a specific time limit for the Governor to act on a Bill, it cannot be interpreted as allowing indefinite inaction. Similarly, under Article 201, the Court held that the President must make a decision within three months of receiving a Bill, and any delay beyond that must be explained in writing and communicated to the concerned State.

The new Presidential reference raises concerns about whether the judiciary can prescribe such timelines when the Constitution itself is silent. It also challenges the idea of “deemed assent” — a concept introduced by the Court implying that inaction could automatically lead to a Bill being considered approved.

Senior advocates KK Venugopal and P Wilson, representing the States of Kerala and Tamil Nadu, opposed the maintainability of the reference, arguing that the matter may not be fit for the Court’s opinion.

The reference argues that Articles 200 and 201 do not grant the court the authority to enforce deadlines and that doing so could interfere with the discretionary powers of constitutional authorities. It further states that the judiciary’s directions in this matter could blur the separation of powers between the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary.