Presidential Reference hearing LIVE: Can a timeline be set on President and Governors for clearing Bills?

‘A power to withhold necessarily involves personal independent judgment, guided by settled principles of laws,’ R. Venkataramani, representing his Constitutional office of Attorney General of India, submitted to a five-judge SC Bench headed by the CJI

The Solicitor General detailed that Dr. B.R. Ambedkar had intervened that day to substitute the term “six weeks” with the phrase “as soon as possible” in the proviso of draft Article 91; the CJI viewed the debate from a different angle, pointed out that a time limit was indeed contemplated by Constituent Assembly members.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (August 20, 2025) asked the Centre if elected State governments were at the mercy of the whims and fancies of Governors, who could fail Bills by merely withholding assent for them. 

“So, are Governors being given total powers to sit in appeal over the elected representatives? This way, if Bills are failed by Governors, governments formed by majority will be at the mercy of their whims and fancies,” Chief Justice Gavai quizzed Mr. Mehta’s interpretation of Article 200. 

As per Article 143, the President may refer any question of law or fact of public importance to the Supreme Court for its opinion. The President makes such a reference based on the advice of the Union council of ministers. Article 145 of the Constitution provides that any such reference shall be heard by a bench of minimum five judges.

The Supreme Court may provide its opinion after such hearing as it thinks fit. The opinion is legally not binding on the President, and does not hold a precedential value for the courts to follow in subsequent cases.

President Droupadi Murmu, through a Presidential Reference, asked whether judicial orders can dictate by what time and in what manner the President and Governors should function under Articles 200 (which covers the process of grant of assent by Governors to State Bills), and 201 (when Bills are reserved by Governors for Presidential assent) of the Constitution.

The President sought clarity from the top court after its verdict in a petition filed by the Tamil Nadu government challenging the State Governor’s delay in clearing 10 re-passed Bills and his subsequent action to reserve them for consideration by the President.

This led to a five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, also known as the Constitution Bench, to hear the opinion of Centre and States on the issue. The Bench would then send its opinion to the President.