In a significant development, the Supreme Court has directed the Tamil Nadu government to hold off on its plea challenging Governor RN Ravi’s decision to forward the Tamil Nadu Physical Education and Sports University (Amendment) Bill, 2025, to the President for assent. A bench led by Chief Justice of India Bhushan R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran suggested that the matter would be addressed after a constitutional bench pronounces its judgment on a presidential reference concerning the timelines and authority of governors and the President in acting upon state bills.
“You will have to wait for the outcome of the presidential reference. It will hardly take four weeks. The reference has to be decided before November 21,” the bench noted, highlighting the Chief Justice’s upcoming retirement date.
Previously, on September 11, the five-judge bench had reserved its verdict on the presidential reference, which seeks clarity on whether courts can mandate timelines for governors and the President when granting assent to state bills.
During Friday’s proceedings, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Tamil Nadu, argued that the governor lacked the authority to refer the Bill to the President, especially after receiving the council of ministers’ “aid and advice.”
Countering this, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta pointed out the large number of bills (381 between 2015 and 2025) referred by governors nationwide, suggesting that making every such reference litigable would overwhelm the courts.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, also representing the state, questioned the governor’s process, asking, “Can the governor sit and examine every clause of a Bill like a judge?”
The Tamil Nadu government’s petition deemed the governor’s decision to reserve the Bill for presidential consideration as “patently unconstitutional, violative of Articles 163(1) and 200 of the Constitution, and void ab initio.” The state highlighted that the Bill was sent for assent on May 6, 2025, with the chief minister’s recommendation, but was later referred to the President on July 14, citing a supposed conflict with UGC Regulations, 2018, a move the state considers beyond the governor’s constitutional powers.
The ongoing presidential reference, initiated by President Droupadi Murmu under Article 143, stems from a previous Supreme Court ruling that set a one-month deadline for governors on re-enacted bills and a three-month limit for the President, despite the Constitution being silent on such timelines. This reference poses 14 questions to the court, including whether judicial intervention through time limits infringes upon the discretion of governors and the President, and whether assent-related functions are subject to judicial review.
The central government, through the Attorney General and Solicitor General, has argued that the earlier judgment setting these deadlines was incorrect and should not serve as a precedent. However, senior advocates for states like West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, and Punjab have opposed reopening the ruling, asserting that Article 143 should not be used to overturn established precedents.