Imagine a State Assembly passes a law — say, on university appointments or police reform — and sends it to the Governor for assent. The Governor simply sits on it. Not rejecting it, not returning it, not forwarding it to the President. Just silence, for months, sometimes years. The law that the elected legislature wanted never takes effect, and no one can force the Governor's hand — or so it was long assumed. In 2025 the Supreme Court disagreed, and used its extraordinary powers to fix timelines and even deem a Bill assented to. The Union government pushed back through an unusual route: a Presidential Reference asking the Court to reconsider, in the abstract, whether it was ever entitled to do this. The Court's opinion on that reference is now out, and it goes to the heart of how the three wings of government are meant to relate to each other.
Can the Supreme Court Set Deadlines for the President and Governors? Inside the Presidential Reference Opinion
The Supreme Court has answered a rare Presidential Reference asking whether courts can compel Governors and the President to act on Bills within fixed timelines — reopening a fight over the limits of judicial power under Articles 143, 200 and 201.
Provisions in this story
AI-assisted explainer · legal references verified against the provisions database · education, not legal advice.
Reporting sources: Supreme Court counters 'appeal in disguise' argument of non-BJP-ruled … · Judiciary cannot tie President, Governor to timelines, says Supreme Co… · Bills cannot be brought to Court and decided upon: Supreme Court · Presidential Reference: Why The Centre Won In Supreme Court · SC refers issue of Judges' Promotion to Constitution Bench · Presidential Reference Opinion Turns The Constitution On Its Head · Governor and President's powers | Judgement Summary