Can the Supreme Court Set Deadlines for the President and Governors? A Historic Case Begins July 22

On July 22, 2025, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India will begin hearing a major constitutional case that could reshape the relationship between the judiciary and the executive.

The case centers around a Presidential reference—a formal request made by President Droupadi Murmu—asking the Supreme Court for its opinion on a matter of great public importance. This has been made under Article 143(1) of the Constitution, which allows the President to consult the Court on legal questions.

What’s the Issue?

The key question is this:Can the Supreme Court lay down timelines and procedures for the President and State Governors when they consider Bills passed by State legislatures?

This debate began with a Supreme Court ruling in a case filed by the State of Tamil Nadu, where the Court said that although the Constitution does not give a time limit for Governors (under Article 200) or the President (under Article 201) to act on Bills, they cannot take indefinite time.

The Court laid down specific timelines:

• Governors must act on Bills within a “reasonable time.”

• Presidents must decide within three months, and if there is any delay, they must explain why and inform the State.

The Court also introduced the idea of “deemed assent”—meaning if a decision is not made in time, it could be treated as automatically approved.

Who’s Hearing the Case?

A five-judge Constitution Bench has been formed to hear the matter:

• Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai

• Justice Surya Kant

• Justice Vikram Nath

• Justice PS Narasimha

• Justice Atul S Chandurkar

This Bench will examine whether the Court's earlier decision went beyond its powers and whether it can issue such guidelines when the Constitution is silent on the matter.

Why Is It Controversial?

The Supreme Court’s earlier judgment was seen by some, including Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar, as a judicial overreach. He strongly criticized the ruling, asking how the judiciary can give directives to the President, and warned that such actions blur the lines between the judiciary, legislature, and executive.

He said:

"We never bargained for democracy for this day... So we have judges who will legislate, who will perform executive functions, who will act as super Parliament."

Following these concerns, President Murmu sent a reference to the Supreme Court, raising 14 constitutional questions, including:

• Can the Supreme Court create timelines where none exist in the Constitution?

• Does the concept of “deemed assent” have any place in India’s constitutional scheme?

• Do such judicial directions interfere with the discretion of high constitutional authorities like the President and Governors?

  
  

What Could Happen?

This case is not just about legal timelines—it's about the balance of power between the three branches of government:

• Legislature (makes the laws)

• Executive (implements the laws)

• Judiciary (interprets the laws)

If the Court upholds its earlier decision, it may limit the discretion of Governors and the President when acting on Bills. If it reverses the decision, it may reinforce the executive's independence in such matters.

Either way, the outcome will set a major precedent on how far the judiciary can go in interpreting constitutional silences.

Why It Matters:

India's Constitution is clear about the separation of powers, but not every situation is spelled out. In areas where the Constitution is silent—like how long a Governor can take to sign a Bill—the Court often steps in to fill the gaps. But is that the Court’s role?

That’s what the Constitution Bench will decide.

This hearing could be one of the most important constitutional moments in recent times. It will not only impact how laws are processed by State governments but also influence the broader debate on judicial activism vs. executive authority.