theTripurapost News Images

Hearing Of Setting Deadline For Governor-President By SC On July 22

  • By Thetripurapost Desk, New Delhi
  • Jul 20, 2025
  • 589

A five-judge bench headed by CJI BR Gavai will hear this matter in the Supreme Court on July 22. The bench includes Justice Suryakant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Atul S Chandurkar.

The case relates to the April 8 verdict of the Supreme Court, in which the court had, invoking Article 142 of the Constitution, set a deadline for the President and Governors to pass the bill.

The bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan had said that the Governor has no veto power. The President will have to take a decision on the bill sent by the Governor within 3 months.

On May 15, President Draupadi Murmu had asked 14 questions to the Supreme Court using Article 143 of the Constitution. Murmu had sought clarification on matters such as the powers of the President and Governor, judicial intervention and setting of time limits

What is Article 143?

Under Article 143 of the Constitution of India, the President gets the right to seek opinion from the Supreme Court. This helps in solving constitutional problems. It mainly has different clauses for two types of opinions-

Article 143 (1): The President can seek the opinion of the Supreme Court on any legal or factual question. It is not necessary that the question be related to any existing dispute. For example, before making a new law, opinion can be taken on its constitutional validity.

Article 143 (2): If a dispute is related to any treaty, agreement or other document which was in force before the Constitution came into force on January 26, 1950, the President can seek the opinion of the Supreme Court.

First know where this matter started from...

In fact, 12 bills were passed in the Tamil Nadu Assembly between 2020 and 2023. These were sent to Governor RN Ravi for approval. He did not take any action on the bills and kept them suppressed.

In October 2023, the Tamil Nadu government appealed to the Supreme Court. After this, the Governor returned 10 bills without signing them and sent 2 bills to the President for consideration. The government passed 10 bills again and sent them to the Governor. This time the Governor sent them to the President.

In an important decision on 8 April 2025, the Supreme Court declared the Governor's blocking of the bill illegal. Justice JB Pardiwala's bench told the Governor - 'You should follow the Constitution, not the wishes of the parties.'

The Governor did not act 'honestly'. Therefore, the court ordered that these 10 bills be considered passed. This was the first time that bills were passed without the approval of the Governor.

Now the entire case after the hearing on 8 April in dates...

May 15: President Draupadi Murmu asked 14 questions to the Supreme Court

President Draupadi Murmu had asked the Supreme Court 143 (1) 14 questions regarding the deadline for the appointment of president and governors.

President Murmu had sought clarifications on issues like powers of the President-Governor, judicial intervention and setting of time limits.

The President had asked that if there is no such provision in the Constitution, then how can the Supreme Court decide to set a time limit for the President and the Governor to give approval to the bills.

4 points of the Supreme Court on the bill sent by the Governor to the President

1. A decision has to be taken on the bill: The Supreme Court had said that Article 201 says that when the assembly passes a bill, it should be sent to the Governor and the Governor sends it to the President for consideration. In this situation, the President will have to approve the bill or tell that he is not giving approval.

2. There will be judicial review: The Supreme Court had said that the President's decision can be judicially reviewed under Article 201. If the bill gives priority to the decision of the Central Government, then the court will review the bill on the basis of arbitrariness or malice.

The court said that if the bill gives priority to the state cabinet and the governor has decided on the bill contrary to the aid and advice of the council of ministers, then the court will have the right to legally examine the bill.

3. State government will have to give reasons to the Governor: The Supreme Court clarified that when a deadline is set, a decision should be taken within a reasonable timeline. The President will be required to take a decision within 3 months of receiving the bill. If there is a delay, reasons for the delay will have to be given.

4. Bills cannot be sent back repeatedly: The court said that the President sends back a bill to the state assembly for amendment or reconsideration. If the assembly passes it again, then the President will have to take a final decision on that bill and stop the process of returning the bill repeatedly.