BREAKING | SUPREME COURT SEEKS RESPONSE FROM CENTRE AND STATES ON PRESIDENT'S REFERENCE REGARDING BILL ASSENT TIMELINES:

On July 22, the Supreme Court issued notice to the Union Government and all State Governments on a Presidential Reference made by President Droupadi Murmu. The Reference seeks the Court's opinion under Article 143 of the Constitution on crucial questions related to the powers of Governors and the President under Articles 200 and 201, particularly regarding the timelines and procedures for assenting to Bills passed by State legislatures.

A Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai, and comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha, and AS Chandurkar, has scheduled the matter for hearing next Tuesday, to ensure appearances by all parties involved. The CJI stated that the Court is inclined to hear the matter in August.

The Bench requested the Attorney General for India, R. Venkataramani, to assist the Court. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union Government, waived notice on behalf of the Centre. Senior Advocate KK Venugopal, appearing for the State of Kerala, indicated that Kerala would challenge the maintainability of the Reference itself. Similarly, Senior Advocate P. Wilson, representing Tamil Nadu, submitted that the questions posed in the Reference have already been addressed in the Court's judgment in the Tamil Nadu Governor’s case and added that Tamil Nadu too would raise the issue of maintainability.

The Reference follows the Supreme Court's recent ruling in the Tamil Nadu Governor’s case, where a two-judge bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan held that Governors cannot indefinitely delay assent to Bills using a “pocket veto.” The Court imposed a three-month upper limit for Governors to act on Bills presented under Article 200. It further ruled that if a Governor reserves a Bill for the President’s consideration, the President must also act within three months under Article 201. The Court clarified that delays beyond this timeline would entitle the State Government to seek a writ of mandamus to compel action.

The same judgment also declared that ten Bills withheld by the Tamil Nadu Governor for over a year had received "deemed assent." This decision has been controversial, with former Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar publicly questioning the judiciary’s authority to issue directives to the President, likening Article 142 to a "nuclear missile" in the judiciary’s arsenal.

The Presidential Reference now seeks clarity on whether courts can prescribe timelines for constitutional functionaries like the Governor and the President to act on Bills. Among the 14 questions raised are:

1.      What are the constitutional options available to a Governor under Article 200?

2.      Is the Governor bound by the advice of the Council of Ministers when exercising discretion under Article 200?

3.      Can the President or Governor’s discretion be judicially reviewed?

4.      Is Article 361 an absolute bar to such review?

5.      In absence of prescribed timelines, can the Court judicially impose them?

6.      Can actions or inactions under Articles 200 and 201 be substituted or directed under Article 142?

7.      Is judicial review permissible before a Bill becomes law?

8.      Can a State law be valid without express assent from the Governor?

9.      Should such questions always be heard by a Constitution Bench under Article 145(3)?

10.  Are disputes between Centre and States solely triable under Article 131?

This Reference is particularly significant given that the same Bench (Justices Narasimha and Chandurkar) is also handling the Kerala Governor matter, which the State argues is already covered by the Tamil Nadu ruling. The Union Government, however, has opposed this view and contends that the Court should await the outcome of the Presidential Reference before proceeding further.