By Kavita Mistry 
Last Updated:
The matter pertains to President Murmu’s Article 143 reference about time limits for President and Governors to assent to bills, after hearing states and Union arguments.
File photo of Supreme Court. (Image: PTI)
The Supreme Court will pronounce its verdict on Thursday in the reference made by President Droupadi Murmu under Article 143, concerning the time limits for the President and state governors to grant assent to legislative bills under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution.
A five-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai will pronounce its verdict on the matter. The matter pertained to the apex court’s April 12 verdict, where it imposed deadlines on President Droupadi Murmu and Governors to clear bills passed by states.
In August, CJI Gavai had said the court would only act in an “advisory” role and not sit in appeal. The court’s decision to impose deadlines on the President and Governors had raised constitutional questions on whether the court can impose timelines for Governors and the President to deal with bills passed by state assemblies.
What’s The Matter?
In April, the Supreme Court passed a verdict, saying 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, calling Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi’s decision to withhold Bills “illegal”.
It also said that state governments can directly approach the Supreme Court if the President withholds assent on a bill sent by a Governor for consideration. This sparked questions over the jurisdiction of the judiciary over the executive.
President Murmu exercised powers under Article 143(1) to know from the top court whether timelines could be imposed by judicial orders for the exercise of discretion by the President while dealing with the bills passed by state assemblies.
In a five-page reference, President Murmu posed 14 questions to the Supreme Court and sought to know its opinion on powers of Governor and President under Articles 200 and 201 in dealing with bills passed by the state legislature.
States like Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Punjab, and West Bengal questioned the necessity of the reference, arguing that the earlier judgment had already addressed these issues. However, the Court explored whether Governors could indefinitely delay assent without returning bills, warning that such power could undermine the authority of elected governments.
Attorney General R. Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union government, opposed fixed timelines. They argued that the Constitution grants discretion to the President and Governors, and judicially imposing deadlines could breach the separation of powers.
Mehta also supported the argument that the Supreme Court can revisit and even modify an earlier judgment while exercising Article 143.
Aveek Banerjee is a Senior Sub Editor at News18. Based in Noida with a Master’s in Global Studies, Aveek has more than three years of experience in digital media and news curation, specialising in international…Read More
Aveek Banerjee is a Senior Sub Editor at News18. Based in Noida with a Master’s in Global Studies, Aveek has more than three years of experience in digital media and news curation, specialising in international… Read More
November 19, 2025, 20:33 IST
Read More