Kerala Urges Supreme Court to Return President’s Reference on Bill Assent Delays

Kerala has filed an application before the Supreme Court to declare that the reference made by the President of India on the issue of on timelines for deciding bills is not maintainable, and the same be returned to the President of India unanswered in whole or in part.

"This is amazing, and it is difficult to believe that the Council of Ministers, in advising the Hon’ble President, have not even cared to read the proviso to Article 200 which states that the Governor shall act “as soon as possible after the presentation to him of the Bill for assent”.....If the reference itself is based on an erroneous statement, the entirety of the reference, which mainly relates to the time factor, should stand rejected.", the application states.

It is Kerala's stand that the present reference suppresses the aspect, that the first 11 out of the 14 queries raised are directly covered by a judgment of the Supreme Court in The State of Tamil Nadu v. The Governor of Tamil Nadu, delivered on April 8, 2025, and ,"These Queries 1 to 11 directly require the Supreme Court to overrule the findings in the judgment in the Tamil Nadu case(supra) and the other two cases, without letting the Court know that in fact, its exercise would result in overruling its own judgments, a power which is not available to the Supreme Court".

Supreme Court has further been told that a reference under Article 143 of the Constitution cannot result in the Supreme Court overruling the findings of law and fact delivered in the earlier judgments, but it can only clarify aspects where there is a doubt and thus, the instant reference is thus a serious misuse of the power under Article 143 of the Constitution of India. 

"It therefore appears that the instant reference is being used as a device to obtain decisions on these vital issues, without disclosing and by suppressing the final findings already rendered on these issues by this Hon’ble Court, and to get this Hon’ble Court to deliver inconsistent judgments on the issue of time frame under Article 200, which is not res integra.", the application filed through Advocate CK Sasi submits.

Just last week, a five judge bench of the Supreme Court of India issued notice to the Union of India and all the state governments in a special reference case taken up over the opinion sought by President Droupadi Murmu on its order imposing timelines for the exercise of discretion by the Governor and the President under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution of India to decide on bills.

The case was registered on July 19 by the court's own motion titled, "IN RE : ASSENT, WITHHOLDING OR RESERVATION OF BILLS BY THE GOVERNOR AND THE PRESIDENT OF INDIA vs.". A bench comprising CJI BR Gavai, Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar took up the matter.

In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed timeline and the manner of exercise of powers by the Governor and the President, can timelines be imposed and the manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of discretion, President Murmu has asked by way of reference.

On 8th of April, the Supreme Court held that the scheme of Article 200 is characterized by the movement of the bill from one constitutional authority to another and that too with a sense of expediency and it is not open for the Governor to reserve a Bill for the consideration of the President once it is presented to him in the second round, after having been returned to the House previously as per the first proviso.

The top court added that once a bill is returned to the Governor after reconsideration by the State legislature, it must be assented to without delay. The Governor cannot reserve such a bill for the President’s consideration, as per the constitutional scheme under Article 200.

In this backdrop, President Murmu has asked if in light of the constitutional scheme governing the powers of the President, is the President required to seek advice of the Supreme Court by way of a reference under Article 143 of the Constitution of India and take the opinion of the Supreme Court when the Governor reserves a Bill for the President’s assent or otherwise?

“Are the decisions of the Governor and the President under Article 200 and Article 201 of the Constitution of India, respectively, justiciable at a stage anterior into the law coming into force? Is it permissible for the Courts to undertake judicial adjudication over the contents of a Bill, in any manner, before it becomes law?”, the President has asked.

The Supreme Court’s decision of April 8th has also been questioned in view of the proviso to Article 145(3) of the Constitution of India. The President has asked if is it not mandatory for any bench of the Supreme Court to first decide as to whether the question involved in the proceedings before it is of such a nature which involves substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of constitution and to refer it to a bench of minimum five Judges.

“Do the powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India limited to matters of procedural law or Article 142 of the Constitution of India extends to issuing directions /passing orders which are contrary to or inconsistent with existing substantive or procedural provisions of the Constitution or law in force?”, Murmu has further sought clarification.

Supreme Court has been asked to clarify if the Constitution bar any other jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to resolve disputes between the Union Government and the State Governments except by way of a suit under Article 131 of the Constitution of India. Acting on a writ petition filed by the Tamil Nadu state government, a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan held in case of withholding of assent contrary to the advice of the State Council of Ministers, the Governor must return the bill together with a message within a maximum period of three months, it said.

In case of reservation of bills for the consideration of the President contrary to the advice of the State Council of Ministers, the Governor shall make such reservation within a maximum period of three months; in case of presentation of a bill after reconsideration in accordance with the first proviso, the Governor must grant assent forthwith, subject to a maximum period of one-month, the bench had said.

"When called upon to take decisions, such authorities must not give in to ephemeral political considerations but rather be guided by the spirit that underlies the Constitution. They must look within and reflect whether their actions are informed by their constitutional oath and if the course of action adopted by them furthers the ideals enshrined in the Constitution. If the authorities attempt to deliberately bypass the constitutional mandate, they are tinkering with the very ideals revered by its people upon which this country has been built," the top court’s bench had said.

Case Title: IN RE: ASSENT, WITHHOLDING OR RESERVATION OF BILLS BY THE GOVERNOR AND THE PRESIDENT OF INDIA