Shreya Gupta
On August 21, 2025, the Supreme Court is hearing a Presidential reference under Article 143. The reference arises from the Court’s April ruling on gubernatorial and presidential timelines for bills. During the proceedings, the Union was pressed on whether courts would be “powerless” if a Governor sits on a bill for years. The matter is being heard by a Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai, along with Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha, and Atul S. Chandurkar.
The Bench’s concern followed the Centre’s stance, argued by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, that some problems are to be resolved through the political process and that Governors can decline to act, with remedies lying in democratic, not judicial, mechanisms.
The April judgment in The State of Tamil Nadu v. The Governor of Tamil Nadu & Anr had held that Article 200 cannot be read to permit indefinite delay, that the Governor must act within a reasonable time, and that even under Article 201 the President’s decision-making is judicially reviewable and ordinarily within three months. The President has now referred fourteen questions, including whether the Court can devise procedures where the Constitution is silent and whether imposing time limits encroaches on the discretionary space of the President and Governors.
In arguments, the Court noted that allowing indefinite withholding of assent would place an elected government at the “whims and fancies” of an unelected Governor, and that the decision-making process, not merely the final decision falls within judicial review.
The SG full form countered that prescribing timelines would amount to rewriting the Constitution;, questioned reliance on the Sarkaria and Punchhi Commissions; and analogies were drawn to cases like P. Ramachandra Rao to resist judicially fixed limits.
He stressed separation of powers, warned of multi-level challenges if timelines are judicially crafted, and argued that “deemed assent” would wrongly substitute the Court for a constitutional functionary, adding that Article 142 cannot amend the Constitution. The Bench queried safeguards against “unlimited” gubernatorial inaction, pointed to pending petitions from multiple States, and discussed justiciability of inaction versus assent. Additional issues, such as Article 131 suits for Union- State disputes, were flagged, with counsel including the Attorney General and senior advocates participating.
The matter is to continue on 26th August 2025.
Instagram: Click here
LinkedIn: Click here
For Collaboration and Business: info.desikaanoon@gmail.com