SC seeks Centre, States' views on Presidential reference over bill assent timelines; next hearing on July 29

The Supreme Court on Tuesday called upon the Centre and all States to respond to a Presidential reference that seeks clarity on whether specific timelines can be imposed for granting or withholding assent to bills passed by state legislatures.

A five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, and comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha, and AS Chandurkar, observed that the matter has wide-reaching implications across the federal structure, and not just for a single state.

As such, the apex court has given one week's time and directed the responses to be filed on next Tuesday, July 29.


The bench further stated it would finalise the hearing schedule on July 29 and expressed its intention to begin arguments by mid-August.

Presidential reference under Article 143
This move follows a Presidential reference issued in May, invoking Article 143(1) of the Constitution.

The President referred 14 key questions to the top court seeking its legal opinion on the constitutional roles of the President and Governors in giving assent to state bills. Article 143(1) empowers the President to consult the SC on matters of significant public importance and seek its advisory opinion.

The reference stems from a Supreme Court ruling on April 8 in a case involving the Tamil Nadu government.

In a first-of-its-kind decision, the court had stipulated that the President must act within three months on bills reserved for her consideration by the Governor. This directive raised broader constitutional concerns about the separation of powers and the roles defined under Articles 200 and 201.

Articles 200 and 201: Scope and limitations

Article 200 empowers Governors to either grant assent, withhold assent, or reserve a bill for the President’s consideration. Article 201 outlines the procedure when a bill is reserved for presidential assent but similarly contains no specific timeline for such action.

The reference notes that neither article provides a defined period within which the Governor or the President must act. It also flags concerns over the April 8 ruling’s invocation of Article 142—used by the Court to re-present a bill to the Governor as "deemed to have been passed"—as potentially altering the constitutional balance.