The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its judgment on a Presidential reference under Article 143, seeking clarity on the timelines for granting assent to Bills by the President and Governors under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution.

A five-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha, and AS Chandurkar, heard the matter for ten days before reserving it for a verdict.

Attorney General R Venkataramani concluded his arguments representing the top law officer of the country, while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta defended the Centre’s stance, countering objections from opposition-ruled states including Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Kerala, Karnataka, Telangana, Punjab, and Himachal Pradesh.

During the proceedings, the apex court clarified that it would not re-examine the Tamil Nadu Governor judgment but would address the broader constitutional questions raised. Several states had contested the maintainability of the reference, arguing that these questions had already been resolved in the previous ruling.

The reference was initiated in May by President Droupadi Murmu, following the April 8 verdict of a two-judge bench on the powers of the Governor in handling Bills passed by the Tamil Nadu Assembly. The President sought the court’s opinion on whether judicially enforceable timelines could be imposed on the exercise of discretion by the President when assenting to state legislature Bills.

President Murmu, in her five-page reference, posed 14 specific questions to the Supreme Court, seeking guidance on the constitutional powers of the Governor and President under Articles 200 and 201, and the potential impact on the functioning of elected governments if Governors were allowed to withhold Bills without returning them to the state Assembly.