Constitution Bench of Supreme Court to Hear Presidential Reference on Bill Assent Deadlines for Governors

In a development that could significantly alter the balance of constitutional powers in India’s federal framework, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear on July 22, 2025, a Presidential reference concerning the discretion and timeline available to the President and Governors of States while deciding on bills passed by State legislatures.

The reference, made under Article 143(1) of the Constitution by President Droupadi Murmu, seeks the Supreme Court’s opinion on whether it can constitutionally prescribe deadlines and procedural guidelines for the President and Governors while acting under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution. These provisions deal with the assent, withholding of assent, or reservation of bills passed by State legislatures.

The Constitution Bench constituted for this purpose comprises Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice PS Narasimha, and Justice Atul S Chandurkar. The matter has arisen following a contentious ruling of the Court in April 2025, which laid down certain expectations and timelines for action by Governors under Article 200, stating that inaction by a Governor could be subject to judicial review.

Background of the Reference

The genesis of the Presidential reference lies in a judgment delivered in a case filed by the State of Tamil Nadu. In that case, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, considered the issue of undue delay by Governors in granting or refusing assent to State legislation. The Court, while acknowledging that Articles 200 and 201 do not explicitly provide for a timeframe, held that such constitutional silence could not be interpreted as conferring an indefinite and unrestricted discretion upon the Governor.

The Court emphasized that the absence of a time limit does not imply absolute freedom for inaction and ruled that the Governor must act within a "reasonable time." It further affirmed that the democratic process must not be frustrated through delay and inaction and clarified that such inaction is not immune from judicial review.

The ruling evoked sharp responses from several quarters, particularly from constitutional scholars and political leaders, with debates surfacing on the extent of judicial oversight over constitutional authorities such as Governors and the President. This ultimately led the President of India to invoke Article 143(1), which empowers the President to refer any question of law or fact of public importance to the Supreme Court for its advisory opinion.

Constitutional Provisions Under Consideration

Article 200 of the Constitution empowers the Governor of a State to either give assent to a bill, withhold assent, return the bill for reconsideration (if it is not a money bill), or reserve it for the consideration of the President. Article 201 then comes into play when a bill is reserved for Presidential consideration, enabling the President to give assent, withhold assent, or return the bill for reconsideration by the State Legislature.

Notably, neither provision specifies any timeline within which the President or the Governor must exercise their powers. While the constitutional framers deliberately left these timelines undefined, the issue has increasingly come into focus due to perceived misuse of this discretion in politically sensitive situations.

Legal and Federal Implications

The current reference raises a series of complex constitutional questions, including whether the judiciary can impose a timeframe on constitutional heads, and whether the Court can establish a procedural framework for such discretionary powers in the absence of specific constitutional directives.

Supporters of the Supreme Court’s April ruling argue that such guidelines are necessary to prevent abuse of discretion, ensure legislative efficiency, and protect the democratic mandate of State Assemblies. Critics, however, caution that judicial interference in the domain of executive discretion could risk upsetting the carefully constructed separation of powers and principles of federalism.

This is not the first time the discretionary conduct of Governors has come under judicial scrutiny. In several cases in recent years—including the political crisis in Maharashtra and controversies surrounding appointments in State universities—the actions of Governors have been perceived to reflect partisan or obstructive behavior, raising questions about the neutrality of constitutional functionaries.

The decision of the Supreme Court Constitution Bench, though technically advisory, will have far-reaching implications. It could potentially result in the formulation of binding constitutional norms concerning how quickly and under what conditions the President or a Governor must act when presented with a bill.

The Broader Constitutional Context

The reference comes at a time of heightened tension between several State governments and their respective Governors, particularly in States governed by opposition parties. Several Chief Ministers have publicly accused Governors of stalling governance by delaying assent to key legislation. In Tamil Nadu, Kerala, West Bengal, and Telangana, bills have remained pending with Governors for several months, sometimes over a year, with little or no communication on the rationale for the delay.

In this context, the Supreme Court’s April 2025 ruling is seen by many as an attempt to restore a balance between legislative functioning and executive discretion. The upcoming hearing will test whether the judiciary can go a step further and constitutionally institutionalize such timelines without trespassing into legislative or executive territory.

Conclusion

The Presidential reference to the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court represents a pivotal moment in the evolution of Indian constitutional law. It places before the Court the difficult question of whether judicial guidelines can be imposed on constitutional authorities whose powers have traditionally been considered discretionary and largely immune from time-bound constraints.

The outcome of this hearing could potentially redefine the role of Governors and the President in India’s legislative process, especially in the context of Centre-State relations. Whether the Court affirms its ability to structure constitutional silence or chooses to defer to political conventions remains to be seen, but the stakes for Indian federalism, democracy, and constitutional governance could not be higher.

The hearing is scheduled to begin on July 22, 2025, and is expected to draw significant attention from legal experts, political commentators, and State governments across the country.