The outcome is expected to significantly impact Centre–state relations and clarify constitutional procedures on legislative assent.
New Delhi
The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its verdict on a Presidential Reference that sought clarity on whether timelines can be imposed on Governors and the President for granting assent to state bills. The five-judge Constitution Bench, headed by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha, and A.S. Chandurkar, concluded hearings after ten days of extensive arguments.
The reference was made by President Droupadi Murmu under Article 143(1) on May 13, challenging the Court’s April 8 judgment. In that ruling, a two-judge bench had directed that Governors must act within three months on bills they choose to withhold or reserve, and within one month on re-enacted bills. It further held that the President should decide on bills referred by Governors within three months.
The Presidential Reference raised 14 key constitutional questions, including: whether Governors are bound by ministerial advice under Article 200, whether their discretion is justiciable, and whether judicially imposed timelines are valid in the absence of explicit constitutional provisions.
During the hearings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that while Governors cannot indefinitely hold bills, the Supreme Court cannot prescribe timelines for either Governors or the President. Several states—including Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, and Karnataka—opposed this stance, urging that the April 8 ruling be upheld to prevent legislative paralysis.
The bench has now reserved judgment, which is expected to have far-reaching implications on Centre-state relations and the functioning of constitutional offices.
