On Thursday, November 20, 2025, the Supreme Court is set to issue its advisory opinion on a Presidential Reference that challenges the court’s jurisdiction to “impose” deadlines and dictate how governors and the President should behave when handling state bills that are sent to them for assent or reserved for consideration.
Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai led a five-judge bench that reserved the arguments for September. The bench made it clear that the Center could not expect the highest court to “sit idle” and helpless in the event that a constitutional authority failed to carry out his duty.
The lengthy hearings in the Presidential Reference had highlighted the differences between the governors of Opposition-ruled States and the delay in passing important legislation.
The apex court was criticized by the Union Government for intruding on the President’s and Governors’ domains through the Presidential Reference platform. The Supreme Court’s April 8 ruling, which gave governors and the president three months to address bills presented to them for consideration or assent, respectively, was the point of dispute that resulted in the Presidential reference.
According to the court’s ruling, governors cannot impede government by continuously delaying crucial welfare policies that state legislatures have passed.
Through Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, the Union Government contended that a “one-size-fits-all” approach was required by the April 8 ruling. A consistent deadline for all State Bills, according to Mr. Mehta, would be “self-destructive.”
He had argued that “every bill has its own context-based issues” and that “the court cannot take over legislative functions by giving governors a mandamus to assent to State Bills.”
Attorney General R. Venkataramani has argued that governors should have the authority to decide whether to approve or reject bills after determining if they are constitutional.
