NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice to the Centre and all states in the Presidential reference case that sought clarity on whether the court can set timelines and procedures for the President and state governors to act on Bills passed by state legislatures.A Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, and comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha, and Atul S Chandurkar, also asked attorney general R Venkataramani to assist the court in the matter. Solicitor general Tushar Mehta will appear for the Centre.”There are issues of interpretation of the Constitution. We have requested the learned attorney general to assist us. Issue notice to Union and all state governments. Learned Solicitor General will appear for Union. All state governments be served through email. List it next Tuesday. Notice be also served to all standing counsels,” the court said.The case has been listed for further hearing on Tuesday, July 29.The constitution bench was formed to hear the reference made by President Droupadi Murmu under Article 143(1) of the Constitution. This article allows the President to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion on questions of law or matters of public importance.The reference follows an April ruling of the Supreme Court that laid down timelines for the President and governors to act on Bills. The judgment had also stated that inaction by a governor under Article 200 is subject to judicial review.The ruling came in a case filed by the State of Tamil Nadu. The court had said that the absence of a time limit under Article 200 does not mean governors can delay action indefinitely. The bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan had held that governors must act within a reasonable period and that constitutional silence should not stop the legislative process.The Court had said that while Article 200 does not give a fixed timeline, it should not be used to justify delays in dealing with Bills passed by state legislatures.On the powers of the President under Article 201, the Court had said that the President’s decision is not outside judicial review and must be made within three months. If delayed beyond that, the reasons must be written and shared with the concerned State.”The President is required to take a decision on the Bills within a period of three months from the date on which such reference is received and in case of any delay beyond this period, appropriate reasons would have to be recorded and conveyed to the concerned State,” the judgment said.Following that ruling, President Murmu sent a reference to the Supreme Court raising fourteen questions. The reference challenged the Court’s interpretation of Articles 200 and 201. It stated that neither article gives the Court the power to set deadlines and argued that the idea of “deemed assent” is not mentioned in the Constitution.The April 8 verdict, which was passed in a matter over the powers of the governor in dealing with bills questioned by the Tamil Nadu government, for the first time prescribed that the President should decide on the bills reserved for her consideration by the governor within three months from the date on which such reference is received.In a five-page reference, President Murmu posed questions to the Supreme Court and sought to know its opinion on the powers of governors and the President under Articles 200 and 201 in dealing with bills passed by the state legislature.