The Supreme Court will deliver its opinion tomorrow, November 20, on the President’s reference under Article 143 of the Constitution of India.
The presidential reference refers to the timeline for assent to bills by both presidents and governors under Articles 200/201 of the Constitution.
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar heard arguments after ten days and delivered the verdict on 9/11.
In May of this year, President Droupadi Murmu, using her powers under Article 143(1) of the Constitution, asked the Supreme Court whether the judiciary could set time limits for the exercise of the President’s discretionary powers when discussing bills passed by state assemblies.
This decision by the President came in the wake of the Supreme Court’s April 8 verdict in the Tamil Nadu Government v. State Governor case.
Murmu sent a five-page letter to the oversight committee seeking its opinion on the powers of the president and governors under Articles 200 and 201.
State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu and Union of India (2025)
This landmark decision by the Supreme Court of India came in 2023 in a plea by the Tamil Nadu government to deny Governor RN Ravi’s assent to 10 bills passed by the state assembly.
Between November 2020 and April 2020, the Tamil Nadu Assembly passed 13 laws and 10 of them were withheld by the Governor without any communication with the Assembly.
The Supreme Court, after analyzing Article 200 of the Constitution, concluded that the governor has three options after sending a bill: to give assent to enact the bill; refusing consent and sending it back to the Assembly for reconsideration; or reserving a bill for consideration by the President.
The Attorney General of India argued that the Governor could also withhold approval and not order the return of the bill for reconsideration. However, this argument was rejected by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court said that the fact that Article 200 does not prescribe a timeline to be followed by the Governor cannot be interpreted as a signal allowing unlimited delays or abuse of power by the Governor.
