Follow TNM’s WhatsApp channel for news updates and story links.
A five-judge Constitution Bench, headed by Chief Justice B R Gavai and including Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha, and AS Chandurkar, has formally announced a nine‑day hearing commencing August 19, 2025, to address a Presidential Reference challenging the Supreme Court’s authority to set timelines under Articles 200 and 201 for Governors and the President to act on state bills.
The hearing bench said the state governments of Kerala and Tamil Nadu will raise preliminary objections challenging the maintainability of the Reference. Senior advocates KK Venugopal and AM Singhvi will begin arguments on August 19, drawing initial submissions from states opposing the Reference.
The opposing parties for this hearing represented by Kapil Sibal, Rakesh Dwivedi, Gopal Subramanian, will present arguments on August 19, 20, 21 and 26. The supporting parties led by Attorney General R Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta will respond on August 28, September 2, 3 and 9.
Rejoinders are scheduled for September 10, and the Bench has directed that the timeline must be strictly followed. Coordination between the parties will be handled by designated nodal counsels: Aman Mehta for supporters and Misha Rohatgi for the opposers.
The Presidential Reference follows the April 8, 2025 judgment in State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor R.N. Ravi, where a two-judge Bench ruled that the Governor’s refusal to assent to ten state bills was illegal and arbitrary. The Court directed that the re-passed bills be assented to within three months.
In that ruling, the apex court invoked Article 142 to declare that the ten withheld bills were deemed to have been assented to on the date they were re-presented to the Governor by the state legislature.
In May 2025, President Droupadi Murmu sent a Presidential Reference to the Supreme Court, raising 14 critical constitutional questions. These include whether the courts can impose timelines on the President or Governors in the absence of express provisions, whether their discretion under Articles 200 and 201 is justiciable, and whether courts can prescribe deemed assent using Article 142 in the interest of justice.
Former Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar sharply criticized the April verdict and the invocation of Article 142, calling it a “nuclear missile against democratic forces.” He alleged that the judiciary was overstepping its mandate and acting as a “super Parliament.”