The Supreme Court today issued notices to the Centre and all state governments on the issue of imposition of timelines on Governors and the President to act on Bills in the absence of a constitutionally-prescribed time limit.

In the aftermath of the apex court verdict in the Tamil Nadu Bills case, President Droupadi Murmu, in May this year, had asked the apex court to report its opinion on constitutional options available to a Governor and President when a Bill is presented before them under Article 200 and Article 201 of the Constitution.

Earlier in April 2025, a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court, using its inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, resolved a standoff between the Tamil Nadu government and Governor R.N. Ravi over the delay in granting assent to Bills passed by the Assembly.

It had ruled that Governor Ravi’s refusal to approve 10 Bills in Tamil Nadu was both “illegal and arbitrary”. The top court held that once a Bill is returned, re-passed by the legislature, and presented again to the Governor, it is not open for the Governor to reserve it for the President’s consideration. The court also set a three-month deadline for the President to act on the Bills passed by the legislature for a second time.

The judgment, apparently, brought Presidential actions under judicial review by favouring a three-month deadline, promoting the President to make a reference under Article 143 of the Constitution.

Article 143 provides that the President may invoke the advisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court on matters of public importance or constitutional interpretation.