This judicial scrutiny follows a Presidential reference dated May 13, submitted under Article 143(1) of the Constitution,in which President Murmu raised 14 key constitutional questions. The Supreme Court has now issued formal notices to the Union Government and all state governments.
Background of the Case
The issue stems from the apex court’s landmark judgment delivered on April 8, 2025, which addressed the indefinite withholding of bills by state Governors. Specifically, the court held that Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi's inaction on 10 bills passed between 2020 and 2023 was unconstitutional. The court invoked Article 142 to mandate a specific timeframe for constitutional authorities to act on legislative proposals.
The matter originated when the Tamil Nadu government petitioned the Supreme Court in October 2023, challenging the Governor's prolonged inaction. The Governor had returned 10 bills without assent and forwarded two others to the President. The Assembly re-passed the 10 returned bills, after which the Governor again referred them to the President.
In its April 8 judgment, the bench, led by Justice J.B. Pardiwala, emphasized that Governors must act in accordance with the Constitution and not be influenced by political considerations. It marked a constitutional first, as the court effectively treated the bills as having received assent due to the Governor's undue delay.
Key Constitutional Issues
One central constitutional ambiguity lies in the absence of a defined timeline for the Governor or President to act on bills. Article 200 and Article 201 only state that decisions should be made “as soon as possible,” without prescribing a specific duration.
To address this, the Supreme Court provided interpretative clarity, stating that:
-
Governors must act within one month of receiving a bill.
-
Presidential assent must follow within three months if the bill is referred under Article 200.
-
Delays beyond these timelines must be justified with appropriate reasoning.
-
The judiciary may intervene if inaction violates constitutional obligations.
Scope of the Presidential Reference
Under Article 143(1), the President can seek the opinion of the Supreme Court on questions of law or fact of public importance. President Murmu's reference includes queries on:
-
Whether the judiciary can impose time limits on the President and Governors.
-
The extent of judicial oversight in matters traditionally regarded as within the executive domain.
-
The constitutional validity of the April 8 decision directing time-bound assent.
Supreme Court’s Preliminary Observations
In earlier hearings, the Supreme Court made several important observations:
-
Mandatory Action on Bills: Article 201 requires the President to either assent or withhold assent; indefinite delay is impermissible.
-
Judicial Review: Presidential and gubernatorial actions under Article 201 may be subject to judicial scrutiny if they appear arbitrary or politically motivated.
-
Legislative Primacy: Repeated return of the same bill by the President or Governor, once re-enacted by the legislature, is not constitutionally supported.
-
Requirement for Transparency: Any delay must be accompanied by publicly disclosed reasons.
Divergent Political and Constitutional Views
The judiciary’s intervention has sparked political commentary. On April 17, Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar criticized the judiciary, suggesting that courts are overstepping their role by dictating terms to the executive, calling Article 142 a “24x7 nuclear missile.” In contrast, senior parliamentarian Kapil Sibal defended judicial oversight, asserting that constitutional heads must act on ministerial advice and that the courts have a duty to step in when constitutional machinery fails.
.png)
.png)
1.png)
.png)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
