The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notices to the Union government and all states on a presidential reference seeking its opinion on whether the governors and the president can be judicially bound to act within prescribed timelines on bills passed by state legislatures, indicating that detailed hearings in the matter will commence around mid-August. Detailed hearings in the matter will commence around mid-August. (File photo)

A five-judge Constitution bench, led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai, passed the order while noting that the outcome of the case will have implications across the country and not just for the state of Tamil Nadu, from where the matter originally arose. “We are going to decide for everyone and not only for Tamil Nadu alone,” the bench remarked.

The bench, also comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar, listed the matter for further directions on July 29, when it will finalise the schedule for the marathon hearing. The court tentatively proposed to begin the hearing in mid-August.

“We will issue notice to the Union of India and all states. We will hear it next on July 29 to fix a timeline. Tentatively, we propose to start in mid August,” said the bench. The top court also recorded its satisfaction with the presence of Attorney General R Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta in the matter.

Also Read: Fight political battles before electorate, not in court: SC

AG told the bench he would be assisting the court, while SG confirmed the Union’s participation. Senior advocates P Wilson, representing Tamil Nadu and KK Venugopal, appearing for Kerala raised preliminary objections to the maintainability of the reference, but the bench reiterated that the legal issues raised affect all states equally and must be addressed comprehensively.

“These questions involve interpretation of the Constitution. Issue notice to the Union of India and all the state governments through their respective chief secretaries and standing counsel,” the court said in its order.

Notably, the bench includes four current or future Chief Justices of India, with Justice Surya Kant set to take over in November 2025, followed by Justices Vikram Nath in February 2027 and Justice Narasimha in October 2027.

Tuesday’s development follows a rare invocation of Article 143 of the Constitution, under which the President of India may seek the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion on matters of public importance involving questions of law.

President Droupadi Murmu, on May 13, referred 14 constitutional questions to the Supreme Court, following an April 8 ruling that for the first time imposed judicially enforceable timelines on the governors and the president to act on state bills.

The court’s April 8 judgment, delivered by justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, held that a governor must act “forthwith” or within one month on bills that are re-passed by a state assembly after being returned. If the governor withholds assent or reserves a bill for the president’s consideration, such action must be taken within three months of the bill’s presentation. In a significant invocation of Article 142, the court also ruled that inaction by the governor would render the bills “deemed to have received assent”, effectively bypassing the constitutional functionary.

This ruling came in the context of a petition filed by the Tamil Nadu government against inordinate delays by the governor in assenting to ten key state bills. The court found the governor’s inaction “illegal” and laid down binding timelines — a decision that has since triggered intense debate on the constitutional roles of governors and the president.

The presidential reference has flagged several critical constitutional queries, including whether such “deemed assent” 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.