July 31, 2025

The Supreme Court of India has orchestrated a nine-day schedule to deliberate on a Presidential Reference that challenges its jurisdiction regarding the timelines within which the President and Governors are to act on bills passed by state assemblies. This matter comes under scrutiny as the court balances the checks and balances between the executive and the judiciary. The five-member constitution bench, led by Chief Justice B R Gavai, will initiate hearings starting from August 19. The bench includes Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha, and A S Chandurkar. The first session will hear from senior advocates representing the states of Kerala and Tamil Nadu, who will present their preliminary objections concerning the maintainability of the reference. These sessions are critical as they could significantly impact the delineation of powers between state governors and the judiciary in matters of bill assent. Following the opening arguments, those opposing the reference, which includes notable legal figures such as Kapil Sibal and Rakesh Dwivedi, will have four days — August 19, 20, 21, and 26 — to lay out their case. This is a significant period where critical legal perspectives will be examined. In contrast, advocates supporting the reference, including Attorney General R Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, will respond on August 28, and again on September 2, 3, and 9. A crucial aspect of the proceedings includes the assertion that the constitutional framework does not provide a definitive timeline or procedure for Presidents and Governors when considering assent to bills. The Presidential Reference underscores a concern about the Supreme Court's earlier judgment which utilized Article 142 powers, ruling that ten pending bills with the Tamil Nadu Governor were deemed to have been assented. The President has criticized this judgment as encroaching upon executive powers, stating that the concept of deemed assent contradicts the Constitution’s stipulations. The reference explicitly highlights that Articles 200 and 201 do not set timeframes or detailed processes for the Governors and Presidents in dealing with legislative matters. Having established a precedent of three months for these officials to act on bills in the past, the Supreme Court's judgment contended that such provisions might be necessary for efficiency and accountability. As this case proceeds, legal experts, lawmakers, and the public will be closely monitoring the Supreme Court’s rulings and the implications they might have on the balance of power within India’s democratic framework. The CJI declared that the timeline for arguments will be strictly adhered to, emphasizing the need for orderly proceedings. A nodal counsel has been appointed to streamline the schedule among lawyers, suggesting that the court aims for a structured discussion that allows for comprehensive examination of the issues at hand within the stipulated timeframe. The society watches with anticipation as this landmark deliberation unfolds, potentially reshaping the interaction between state governance and judicial review in the realm of legislation.

Read More at Timesofindia →

Tags: Supreme court, Presidential reference, Governors, Bills, Assent,