38.6c New Delhi, India, Saturday, November 08, 2025
Top Stories Supreme Court
Political NEWS Legislative Corner Celebstreet International Videos
Subscribe Contact Us
close
Judiciary

SC to consider on July 22 President reference on timeline related to Bills passed by State legislatures

By Jhanak Sharma      21 July, 2025 01:46 PM      0 Comments
SC to consider on July 22 President reference on timeline related to Bills passed by State legislatures

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court is set to consider on July 22 a reference made by President Droupadi Murmu on legal questions arising out of the apex court's judgment setting a timeline for the Governor and the President to clear the Bills passed by state legislatures.

A special bench of Chief Justice of India B R Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha and Justice Atul S Chandurkar would take up the special reference registered as 'In Re: Assent, Withholding or Reservation of Bills by the Governor And the President of India'.

After the April 8 judgment fixing a timeline for the Governor and the President on clearing of Bills passed by state legislatures, President Droupadi Murmu has made a reference to the Supreme Court to decide if this can be done through judicial orders in the absence of the constitutionally prescribed timeline for it.

In its judgment, a bench of Justice J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan declared TN Governor R N Ravi's decision to reserve 10 bills for President after those were re-enacted as illegal.

The court had then set the timeline, saying that the President is required to take a decision on the bills reserved for his consideration by the Governor within a period of three months.

The judgment, which also declared all those Bills without assent of the Governor or the President as passed using its power under Article 142 of the Constitution, faced criticism for being in judicial overreach and in violation of the principle of separation of powers.

Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar, Kerala governor Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar, and senior government officials called out the apex court for setting deadlines for the Executive wing of the government, and its use of Article 142 to clear Bills.

Subsequently, in exercise of power under Article 143(1) of the Constitution, the President made the reference. The provision allows the President to seek the opinion of the Supreme Court on any question of law or fact of public importance.

In the reference made on May 13, 2025, the President sought opinion of the Supreme Court on 14 questions, including whether the exercise of constitutional discretion by the President under Article 201 of the Constitution of India is justiciable.

"Are the decisions of the Governor and the President under Article 200 and Article 201 of the Constitution, 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 reference asked.

It also asked if the exercise of constitutional powers and the orders of/by the President / Governor can be substituted in any manner under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

It also sought opinion if a law made by the State legislature is a law in force without the assent of the Governor granted under Article 200 of the Constitution.

"In view of the proviso to Article 145(3) of the Constitution, is it not mandatory for any bench of this 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," it further asked.

The reference also asked if the powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution are 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.

"Does 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," it also asked.

The President felt in prevailing circumstances when the States are frequently approached the Supreme Court invoking Article 32 and 131 of the Constitution, it was expedient to seek the opinion of the Supreme Court on legal questions.



Share this article:

About:

Jhanak is a lawyer by profession and legal journalist by passion. She graduated at the top of her cl...Read more

Follow:
FacebookTwitterLinkedinInstagram


Leave a feedback about this
Related Posts
View All

Another CBI Officer Investigating Rakesh Asthana Moves SC Against Transfer, Makes Startling Revelations Another CBI Officer Investigating Rakesh Asthana Moves SC Against Transfer, Makes Startling Revelations

After A.K. Bassi, another CBI officer who was investigating corruption allegations against Special Director Rakesh Asthana moved the Supreme Court.

Ayodhya verdict: SC rules in favour of Ram Lalla, Sunni Waqf Board gets alternate land Ayodhya verdict: SC rules in favour of Ram Lalla, Sunni Waqf Board gets alternate land

SC bench led by CJI Ranjan Gogoi has allotted the dispute site to Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas, while directing the government to allot an alternate 5 acre land within Ayodhya to Sunni Waqf Board to build a mosque.

Supreme Court: Money Spent On Judiciary Less Than 1% In All States Except Delhi Supreme Court: Money Spent On Judiciary Less Than 1% In All States Except Delhi

The court guided all states to document their response to the commission's report within four weeks. If any of the states fail to file a response, it will be presumed that they have no objections to the recommendations made by the commission, the court said.

Supreme Court Top Panel Names Chief Justices for Bombay, Orissa and Meghalaya High Courts Supreme Court Top Panel Names Chief Justices for Bombay, Orissa and Meghalaya High Courts

On April 18, 2020, the Supreme Court Collegium recommended new Chief Justices for three High Courts. Justice Dipankar Datta was proposed as Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, succeeding Justice B.P. Dharmadhikari. Justice Biswanath Somadder was nominated as Chief Justice of Meghalaya High Court, while Justice Mohammad Rafiq was recommended for transfer as Chief Justice of Orissa High Court.

TRENDING NEWS

arrest-and-remand-illegal-if-written-grounds-not-provided-two-hours-before-production-sc
Trending Judiciary
Arrest and Remand Illegal if Written Grounds Not Provided Two Hours Before Production: SC [Read Judgment]

Supreme Court rules arrests and remands illegal if written grounds aren’t furnished at least two hours before the accused’s production before a Magistrate.

07 November, 2025 04:20 PM
adult-christian-daughter-not-entitled-to-maintenance-us-125-crpc-unless-disabled-kerala-hc
Trending Judiciary
Adult Christian Daughter Not Entitled to Maintenance u/s 125 CrPC Unless Disabled: Kerala HC [Read Order]

Kerala High Court held that an adult Christian daughter cannot claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC unless unable to maintain herself due to disability.

07 November, 2025 04:57 PM

TOP STORIES

no-law-student-shall-be-barred-from-exams-or-academic-progression-due-to-attendane-shortage-delhi-hc
Trending Judiciary
No Law Student Shall Be Barred From Exams Or Academic Progression Due To Attendane Shortage: Delhi HC [Read Judgment]

Delhi HC rules no law student can be barred from exams or academic progress for low attendance; directs BCI to rethink attendance norms and strengthen grievance systems.

03 November, 2025 04:03 PM
mere-refusal-to-marry-does-not-constitute-instigation-under-section-306-ipc-supreme-court
Trending Judiciary
Mere Refusal To Marry Does Not Constitute Instigation Under Section 306 IPC: Supreme Court [Read Order]

Mere refusal to marry does not amount to instigation under Section 306 IPC, rules Supreme Court, quashing FIR and holding no abetment in emotional distress cases.

03 November, 2025 04:15 PM
government-cannot-unilaterally-expand-labour-dispute-scope-without-workers-demand-himachal-pradesh-hc
Trending Judiciary
Government cannot unilaterally expand labour dispute scope without workers’ demand: Himachal Pradesh HC [Read Order]

Government cannot suo motu expand labour dispute scope without workers’ demand, rules Himachal Pradesh High Court, holding termination issues need separate notice.

03 November, 2025 04:21 PM
child-welfare-committee-cannot-direct-police-to-register-fir-allahabad-hc
Trending Judiciary
Child Welfare Committee Cannot Direct Police to Register FIR: Allahabad HC [Read Order]

Child Welfare Committees cannot direct police to register FIRs, rules Allahabad High Court, holding their powers are limited to children needing care and protection.

03 November, 2025 04:29 PM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email