The Centre argued that the Supreme Court's directive amounted to interference in the functioning of Parliament and state legislatures.
Published Aug 19, 2025 | 6:18 PM ⚊ Updated Aug 19, 2025 | 6:18 PM
Supreme Court (iStock)
Synopsis: Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi said the President’s questions had been comprehensively addressed in previous judgments. He accused the Centre of attempting to reopen the issue through the President’s letter to avoid filing a review petition, claiming it indirectly questions the integrity of the Supreme Court’s ruling.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday, 19 August, continued hearing the Presidential reference case on timelines for the President and Governors to decide on Bills passed by state Assemblies.
The court, on 8 April, had set a deadline of three months and procedures for the President and Governors to clear the Bills. The President, who raised 14 questions, challenged the Supreme Court’s April ruling.
The Centre argued that the Supreme Court’s directive amounted to interference in the functioning of Parliament and state legislatures.
The case originated from a petition filed by the Tamil Nadu government, challenging the state Governor RN Ravi’s delay in approving Bills passed by the state legislature. The Supreme Court had previously ruled that Governors and the President must grant assent to Bills within three months, a decision that prompted the President to seek clarification through a letter to the Chief Justice of India.
The Chief Justice BR Gavi converted the letter into a petition and constituted a five-judge constitutional bench comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Surya Kant, Justice PS Narasimha, Justice Vikram Nath, and Justice AS Chandurkar to hear the matter.
During Tuesday’s hearing, Senior Advocate KK Venugopal, representing Kerala, cited the Punjab government’s case, where the Supreme Court had interpreted Article 200 of the Constitution, emphasising that Governors must act “as soon as possible”.
He argued that the Tamil Nadu ruling, which set a specific timeline, aligned with prior judicial interpretations, rendering further hearings redundant. Venugopal also referenced past instances where similar queries from the President were returned, such as in cases involving the Gujarat Assembly.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Tamil Nadu, echoed the same argument, stating that the President’s questions had been comprehensively addressed in previous judgments. He accused the Centre of attempting to reopen the issue through the President’s letter to avoid filing a review petition, claiming it indirectly questioned the integrity of the Supreme Court’s ruling.
The bench, however, emphasised that it was not reviewing its earlier Tamil Nadu verdict but was addressing the President’s questions regarding the basis of that ruling.
The Centre, represented by Attorney General R Venkatramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, contended that the Supreme Court’s imposition of a time limit infringed on the constitutional framework governing legislative processes.
The Solicitor General said that the President has the authority to seek clarification from the Supreme Court on constitutional matters. He argued that the court’s imposition of a three-month deadline raised questions about its authority to set such limits and suggested that the judiciary was overstepping into the domains of Parliament and state legislatures, effectively attempting to “amend the Constitution with pen and paper”.
The bench clarified that it was only addressing the President’s queries and not revisiting the Tamil Nadu verdict. The court will continue hearing the case on Wednesday, 20 August.
The President’s intervention marked a rare but constitutionally significant invocation of her authority to seek judicial opinion, potentially paving the way for a broader debate on federalism, judicial activism, and the boundaries of constitutional offices.
