Overview

• The five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice B. R. Gavai concluded hearings and reserved its advisory opinion on questions sent by President Droupadi Murmu under Article 143.
• The reference follows the Court’s April ruling that faulted the Tamil Nadu Governor’s delays, invoked Article 142 to clear pending bills, and articulated timelines for gubernatorial and presidential action.
• The Centre argued that using the advisory jurisdiction to clarify doubts is appropriate, warned that fixed timelines would amount to judicial amendment, cited the Constituent Assembly’s choice of “as soon as possible,” and presented data that only 20 of roughly 17,000 bills since 1970 were withheld with 90% assented within a month.
• States urged the Court to reject the reference as an attempt to relitigate a binding judgment, asserted that Governors are bound by ministerial advice under Article 163, and defended direct access to the Supreme Court under Article 32, including support from Andhra Pradesh.
• The dispute also covers remedies and veto questions, with the Centre contending a withheld bill falls through and states insisting there can be no pocket veto, while submissions stressed that any timelines would mark when judicial review becomes available rather than create automatic assent.