Add thelocalreport.in As A Trusted Source
New Delhi, Nov 19 (IANS) The Supreme Court is set to deliver its opinion on Thursday on a reference made by the President under Article 143 of the Constitution, seeking the apex court’s opinion on whether a time limit can be imposed on governors to act on bills passed by state legislatures in the absence of a constitutionally prescribed time limit.
A Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai on September 11 heard Attorney General R. Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta as well as reserved its decision after hearing 10 days of oral arguments from opposition-ruled states including Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Kerala, Karnataka, Telangana, Punjab and Himachal Pradesh, which had opposed the President’s reference.
In July this year, a five-judge bench, also comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar, had issued notices to the Center and all state governments in the matter titled “Assent, withholding or reservation of Bills by the Governor and President of India” and called for the assistance of AG Venkataramani, the highest law officer of the Union of India.
Following the apex court’s verdict in the Tamil Nadu bill case, President Draupadi Murmu had asked the apex court to give its opinion on the options available when a bill is presented before the Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution.
Earlier, in April 2025, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court, using its inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, had resolved the impasse between the Tamil Nadu government and Governor RN Ravi over the delay in clearing bills passed by the Assembly.
It ruled that Governor Ravi’s refusal to assent to 10 bills in Tamil Nadu was “illegal and arbitrary” and set a three-month time limit for the assent of the President and the Governor to bills passed for the second time by the legislature.
Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan’s bench said, “The President is required to take a decision within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such reference by the Governor on the Bills reserved for his consideration.” A bench led by Justice Pardiwala made it clear that if there is no decision within this time limit, the states are entitled to file a writ petition seeking mandamus against the President.
The top court used its extraordinary powers to treat the 10 stalled bills as approved on the date they are presented to the Governor after reconsideration by the state legislature.
The top court said that once a bill is returned, passed again by the legislature, and again presented before the Governor, it is not possible for the Governor to reserve it for the consideration of the President.
The judgment, apparently, brought the President’s actions under judicial review by endorsing the three-month deadline for assent to bills, thereby giving rise to the President to make a reference under Article 143 of the Constitution.
Article 143 provides that the President may exercise the advisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court on matters of public importance or constitutional interpretation. In the context, President Murmu asked the apex court, “Is the Governor bound by the aid and advice given by the Council of Ministers while exercising all the options available to him when a Bill is presented before him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?”
Furthermore, the reference to the President raised the question whether the exercise of constitutional discretion by the Governor over Bills is appropriate when Article 361 of the Constitution imposes a complete ban on judicial review in respect of Governor’s actions.
“In the absence of time limits prescribed by the Constitution and the manner of exercise of powers by the President, can time limits be imposed and the manner of exercise prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of discretion by the President under Article 201 of the Constitution of India?” The President asked the apex court to consider it and give its opinion.
–IANS
PDS/UK