The Supreme Court is set to hear a Presidential Reference today, initiated by President Droupadi Murmu, concerning 14 questions about the power to assent on Bills. Key among these is whether the Court can establish timelines for the President or Governor to make decisions on Bills.

This Presidential Reference, made under Article 143, follows the Supreme Court’s judgment a month prior in the Tamil Nadu Governor’s case. The Court had then ruled that the governor acted not bona fide in reserving Bills for the President, deeming those bills as assented. Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan stated in their judgment that the President must act on Bills reserved under Article 201 within 3 months.

The bench presiding over the reference includes Chief justice of India BR Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice PS Narasimha, and Justice AS Chandurkar.

Objections and Arguments Presented

“Highest executive authority can’t be tied down to say you are bound by timelines”

Yesterday, senior advocates KK Venugopal (for State of Kerala) and Abhishek Manu Singhvi (for State of Tamil Nadu) raised preliminary objections, arguing that most questions were already covered by the Tamil Nadu judgment, references cannot be made on settled questions, and the reference attempts an impermissible intra-court appeal.

Attorney General R Venkataramani concluded his arguments by stating that the Tamil Nadu judgment breached various prior judgments, a reference to a larger bench was ignored, and no conclusive authority on Articles 200 and 201 exists, necessitating the reference to determine conclusive authority.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, arguing after lunch yesterday, asserted that the “Highest executive authority can’t be tied down to say you are bound by timelines” and that initial timelines to bound the President were consciously removed.