NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday scheduled the Presidential Reference hearing between August 19 to September 10, on whether the Court will lay down timelines and procedures for the President and State Governors when considering Bills passed by State legislature.
While fixing the schedule of hearings for parties supporting the reference and opposing it, the apex court on Tuesday said the hearing schedule would not be altered under any circumstance.
The apex court also appointed Advocates Aman Mehta and Nisha Rohatgi as the nodal counsel on the sides of the Union and the parties opposing reference respectively, and asked them to prepare their compilations on the issue.
A five-judge Constitution Bench of the top court, headed by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai and comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar asked the parties to file their respective written submissions by August 12.
The Court also granted the first one hour to the States of Kerala and Tamil Nadu to raise their point to the maintainability of the Reference. After their submissions, the Court will start hearing Attorney General and Union supporting the reference on 19, 20, 21, 26 of August. The remainin parties opposing the Presidential reference to be heard on 28 August, and 2, 3, 9 of September. It added that, if any Rejoinder has to file anything, it would be heard on September 10.
Senior Advocate and former Attorney General (AG) of India, K K Venugopal, appearing for the State of Kerala, informed the Court that the SC had already answered 11 questions out of 14 the Presidential reference has sent in the State of Tamil Nadu Vs the Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025) case.
Similarly, senior lawyers, Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi and P Wilson, also submitted that the Tamil Nadu Government has also filed a plea opposing the validity of the Reference.
Earlier on April 8, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, while hearing the case of State of Tamil Nadu against Governor of Tamil Nadu, held that a Governor must act within three months if withholding assent or reserving a Bill, and within one month when a Bill is re-enacted.
The court, which had on April 8 rarely invoking its powers under under Article 142, declared that prolonged inaction by the Governor was "illegal" and directed that the ten pending Bills from Tamil Nadu be deemed to have received assent.
Challenging this verdict, President Murmu had moved the top court on May 13, with 14 crucial questions raised by her -- in the presidential reference -- challenging the SC's April 8 verdict that fixed timelines for governors and President to act on bills passed by state assemblies.
President Murmu, while exercising her power under the rarely used Article 143 (1), moved the apex court and said in the present circumstances, it appeared that 14 questions of law have arisen and they are of such nature and public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Out of 14 crucial questions, the most important were:
1) What are the constitutional options before a Governor when a Bill is presented under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?
2) Is the Governor bound by the aid & advice tendered by the Council of Ministers while exercising all options available with him when a Bill is presented before him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?
3) Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India justiciable?
4) Is Article 361 of the Constitution of India an absolute bar to the judicial review in relation to the actions of a Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?
5) In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed time limit, and the manner of exercise of powers by the Governor, can timelines be imposed and the manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of all powers under Article 200 of the Constitution of India by the Governor?
Earlier on July 22, Supreme Court had agreed to examine President Droupadi Murmu's reference on 14 questions on the issue of timelines prescribed by it to State governors and President while dealing with the bills passed by the assembly.
A five-judge Constitution bench of the apex court, headed by CJI Gavai, during a brief hearing, on July 22 had issued notice to the Centre and all the states and sought their detailed responses respectively by July 29, on the Presidential reference, as to whether timelines could be imposed for dealing with bills passed by assembly.
The CJI-led bench made it clear that the court will seek the help and assistance of the Attorney General (AG), the top law officer of the Centre, R Venkataramani in the case.
The apex Court also had said, it would examine whether the exercise of discretion by Governors and the President on Bills can be subjected to judicially enforceable timelines.
