SC to begin hearing on presidential reference from August 19

The Supreme Court will begin hearings on August 19 regarding the presidential reference on judicial timelines for governors and the president on state bills.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday set the stage for detailed hearings in the presidential reference concerning whether governors and the president can be judicially compelled to act within fixed timelines on state bills, scheduling the matter before a five-judge Constitution bench starting August 19.

SC to begin hearing on presidential reference from August 19

The bench, led by Chief Justice of India Bhushan R Gavai and comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar, finalised a nine-day hearing calendar extending into September.

The court also decided to hear preliminary objections raised by Kerala and Tamil Nadu against the maintainability of the reference at the outset before allowing the Union government and other supporting parties to present arguments.

The bench accepted a request by senior advocates KK Venugopal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Kerala and Tamil Nadu respectively, to allow them make arguments on why the reference ought to be returned and how it is an attempt to re-litigate settled law and amounts to an appeal disguised as a reference.

The Constitution bench directed that written submissions be filed by August 12. The hearings will take place on August 19, 20, 21 and 26, with arguments by the Union and supporting states. August 28 and September 2, 3, and 9 have been set aside for states opposing the reference, followed by a rejoinder by the Union on September 10.

The hearing arises from an unprecedented presidential reference under Article 143, in which President Droupadi Murmu referred to the Supreme Court 14 constitutional questions stemming from the court’s April 8 judgment that imposed enforceable timelines on constitutional authorities for acting on state bills.

The April ruling, delivered by Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, had for the first time laid down binding timelines for governors and the president in relation to state legislation. It held that governors must act “forthwith” or within one month on re-passed bills and decide within three months whether to grant assent or reserve them for presidential consideration. The court also ruled that inordinate delays could result in “deemed assent”, invoking Article 142 to ensure constitutional functionality.

That verdict arose from a petition by the Tamil Nadu government, which had accused its governor of delaying assent to 10 important state bills. The court termed the governor’s inaction as “illegal” and directed action within defined timelines, triggering constitutional debate about separation of powers and the limits of judicial review over high constitutional functionaries.

On July 22, the Supreme Court issued notices to the Union and all state governments, noting that the constitutional issues raised go beyond Tamil Nadu and have implications across the country. “We are going to decide for everyone, and not only for Tamil Nadu,” the bench said, as it scheduled further proceedings for July 29 to finalise the hearing dates.

In Tuesday’s hearing, Venugopal and Singhvi reiterated their objections to the maintainability of the reference. Tamil Nadu has already filed an application seeking outright dismissal of the reference, while Kerala accused the Union of misleading the court into overturning the April 8 judgment.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, however, urged the court to consider the maintainability along with the merits, arguing, “In the past, all issues have been decided together.”

The bench, however, agreed to give Venugopal and Singhvi an hour on August 19 to argue on the maintainability of the reference.

The presidential reference has flagged several critical constitutional queries, including whether a “deemed assent”, as mandated in the April 8 judgment by the two-judge bench, is constitutionally valid, and whether the Supreme Court can impose procedural directions on the president or governors. It questioned whether Article 142 can be used to override express constitutional provisions, and whether the president’s discretion under Article 201 can be subject to timelines or judicial review.

The reference also raised doubts over whether the April 8 judgment should have been decided by a larger bench, since Article 145(3) of the Constitution mandates that substantial questions of law must be heard by at least five judges. “This concern is being looked into seriously, and the registry’s review of precedent is crucial to determine how to proceed procedurally,” said another person familiar with the internal discussion.

Since independence, Article 143 has been invoked at least 14 times to seek the court’s advisory opinion on complex questions of law and public importance. While the court’s opinion in such references is not binding on the president, they have historically played a vital role in constitutional interpretation.

Among the issues raised in the reference are whether decisions of governors and the president under Articles 200 and 201 can be judicially reviewed before a law takes effect; whether courts can direct or substitute the president or governor’s discretion using Article 142; and whether constitutional immunity under Article 361 precludes such review altogether.

Another critical question pertains to whether disputes of this nature should only be adjudicated under Article 131 of the Constitution, which governs disputes between states and the Union, or whether the Supreme Court can resolve them through writ jurisdiction or otherwise. The reference also asks whether the governor is constitutionally bound to act on the aid and advice of the state’s council of ministers while exercising discretion under Article 200.