New Delhi | Legal experts and leaders of some opposition-ruled states on Thursday expressed mixed views on the Supreme Court's opinion on the Presidential Reference that no timelines can be prescribed for governors and the president in granting assent to bills passed by assemblies.
A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice B R Gavai held that the court cannot impose any timelines on governors and the president to grant assent to bills passed by state assemblies but at the same time said the governors do not have "unfettered" powers to sit on the bills for "perpetuity".
Reacting to the Supreme Court's judgment, West Bengal Assembly Speaker Biman Banerjee said a bill loses significance when it remains stuck without clarity, adding that he "personally feels" that a fixed timeline should be laid down for governors to clear bills. He argued that keeping legislation pending indefinitely defeats the purpose of lawmaking and leaves elected governments in limbo.
The ruling DMK in Tamil Nadu on Thursday termed the verdict of the Supreme Court on governors as a "good judgment" and that it would be useful in other cases involving powers of the gubernatorial post. Senior DMK leader T K S Elangovan said that if the state assembly elected by the people of Tamil Nadu had passed a resolution, the governor has to accept it.
Communist Party of India (Marxist) general secretary M A Baby said the Supreme Court's response to the Presidential Reference on timelines to grant assent to bills was "deplorable and shocking".
Reacting to the Supreme Court's opinion, senior advocate Vikas Pahwa said the ruling effectively rolls back the "rigid timelines" of three months for the constitutional functionaries imposed in April by a two-judge bench of the apex court.
"While the Supreme Court continues to guard against prolonged, unexplained and indefinite delays in clearing the bills, it duly respects the governor's and president's constitutional discretion — allowing more space for dialogue, rather than forcing every decision into a judicially mandated deadline," he said.
Terming the opinion as a "corrective intervention", Pahwa said the April 8 verdict had sought to curb the "pocket veto" or permanent inaction by the governors "but, in doing so, arguably pushed the judiciary into micromanaging constitutional actors".
He said the opinion of the Constitution bench restores a more balanced approach.
On the fate of the 10 Tamil Nadu legislations, which were granted deemed assent by the top court on April 8 by exercising its plenary power under Article 142, senior advocate Amit Anand Tiwari said all those bills have become laws and are already notified in the Gazette.
"The opinion rendered in the Presidential Reference will have no impact on the Acts which have already been notified in pursuance of the judgment dated April 8, 2025," he said.
Justice J B Pardiwala-led bench on April 8 had granted deemed assent to 10 Tamil Nadu bills.
The bills, which have now become laws, included amendments to Tamil Nadu Fisheries University Act, Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University Act, Chennai University Act and Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University Act.
Tiwari said the April 8 verdict in Tamil Nadu case has attained finality. He referred to a judgment to buttress his point that the subsequent advisory opinion of the Supreme Court on a Presidential Reference cannot overturn the earlier judgment.
However, the apex court's opinion referred to the views of Justice Y V Chandrachud in a 1978 Presidential Reference case in which he had held that all the courts are bound by the view expressed by the apex court "even in the exercise of its advisory jurisdiction under Article 143(1) of the Constitution".
Advocate Ashwani Dubey said the core finding of the April 8 judgment which prescribed specific timelines has been set aside by the opinion.
"The 'deemed assent' granted by the apex court itself on the 10 Tamil Nadu bills via its Article 142 powers is likely void or significantly affected by the Constitution Bench's ruling that 'deemed assent' is impermissible," Dubey said.
DMK says Supreme Court's 'no timelines can be imposed for Governors' only an opinion
Chennai | Tamil Nadu's ruling DMK on Thursday said that the Supreme Court's 'no timelines for Governors,' in the matter of Presidential reference was only an opinion and not a judgment.
Hence, it was not binding and will not have any impact on adjudication in courts, the party said.
DMK Rajya Sabha MP and senior advocate P Wilson said, "This was not a judgment, and it was only an opinion given by the apex court" on the Presidential reference as per the Constitutional provisions.
Such an opinion given today will not be binding on the apex court during adjudication, he told reporters here.
"The opinion given today, will not be binding in any manner," he asserted citing the 9-judge bench verdict in the Ahmedabad St Xavier's College Society v State of Gujarat (1974) case.
Also, as per para 26 of the opinion given today, the SC has said that its opinion will not affect the Supreme Court judgment delivered in April this year by a Division Bench headed by Justice JB Pardiwala in a petition filed by the Tamil Nadu government over Governor referring bills to President.
That judgment earlier this year fixed 3-month timeline for the President and the Governors to clear state bills.
Hence, the judgment already delivered will not be affected by the SC opinion, the noted DMK advocate said.
It may be recalled that the Tamil Nadu government notified on April 12, 2025 as many as 10 Acts after the apex court judgment that said the bills adopted again by the Assembly and sent to the President by the Governor were deemed to have received assent.
The 10 bills cover state-run varsities, and a key aspect is the transfer the powers to appoint VCs from the Governor-chancellor to the state government.
It includes those to amend the Tamil Nadu Fisheries University Act, and the Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University Act. A bill to amend the Universities laws, the Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University Act, was among the other bills.
The Madras HC had granted interim stay on the operation of these amendment Acts and the government later preferred an appeal against it in the apex court.
Days ago, the Raj Bhavan denied that Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi caused delay in giving his assent to the bills passed by the State Assembly and it said "81 per cent of the Bills" have been assented to by the Governor.
Taking exception to certain "unfounded and factually incorrect allegations" made in public domain that the Governor was delaying assent to the bills passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, and that his "actions were against the interests of the people," the Raj Bhavan said the official records of Raj Bhavan showed of the total bills received as on October 31, 2025 as much as 81 per cent were assented.
