Written by Vineet BhallaNew Delhi | November 19, 2025 10:45 PM IST 2 min readPresident Droupadi Murmu (right) had made the reference under Article 143 of the Constitution, and the verdict will be delivered by a five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India B R Gavai (left). (File Photo, Facebook/President of India)The Supreme Court will pronounce its opinion Wednesday on the crucial Presidential reference regarding the timelines for the President and Governors to grant assent to legislative Bills. The verdict will be delivered by a five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India B R Gavai, just days before his retirement on November 23.The reference, made by President Droupadi Murmu under Article 143 of the Constitution, placed fourteen questions of law before the apex court. At the heart of the matter is a contested federalism issue: can the judiciary set a fixed timeline for Governors to act on Bills passed by elected state assemblies?The case stems from a ruling in April in which a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court held that the Tamil Nadu Governor’s delay in granting assent was unconstitutional and set specific timelines for action. The Centre, however, challenged this through the Presidential reference, arguing that the court cannot act as a “judicial headmaster” by imposing “straightjacket” timelines that the Constitution’s framers intentionally omitted.Explained | Issues in SC hearings on timeline for the President and Governors to assent to BillsDuring the hearings, the Centre argued that the phrase “as soon as possible” in Article 200 of the Constitution – which deals with assent to bills by the Governor – does not imply an immediate deadline and that a Governor is not merely a “postman” or a “showpiece”. It contended that if a Governor withholds assent, the Bill should essentially fall through, citing the colonial Government of India Act, 1935 which said that the Governor’s “initial withholding was an absolute veto” and arguing that similar language was later adopted in the Constitution.Opposition-ruled states, including Tamil Nadu and Kerala, countered that the Centre was attempting to review the April judgment through the “garb” of a reference. They argued that Governors are bound by the “aid and advice” of the Council of Ministers and cannot exercise a “pocket veto” to paralyse elected governments. The states maintained that “our Governors are not Viceroys,” emphasising that governance must reflect the popular will.© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd