ThePrint ThePrintAM: PRESIDENTIAL REFERENCE: WHAT HAS SUPREME COURT SAID?
Nov 21, 2025
Dive into the Supreme Court's recent ruling on presidential references, where fixed action timelines for governors and the president were deemed unnecessary. Discover the court’s call for dialogue in legislative processes and its stance on the limited justiciability of delays. The intriguing backdrop of the Tamil Nadu dispute drives the discussion on key Articles 200 and 201. Explore the governor's unique powers, including reserving bills for presidential review, and the thoughtful rejection of a 'hold bill' interpretation. It's a fascinating look at the intersection of law and governance!
AI Snips
Chapters
Transcript
Episode notes
Judiciary Can't Fix Timelines For Heads
- The Supreme Court held governors and the president cannot be compelled to act on bills within fixed timelines due to separation of powers.
- Judicial intervention is limited and only available once a bill becomes law or in cases of prolonged, unexplained inaction.
Choose Dialogue Over Obstruction
- The court advised constitutional functionaries to engage in dialogue and reconciliation instead of obstruction.
- Governors may refer bills to the president even after a second return following legislative reconsideration.
Articles 200–201 Are Deliberative Tools
- Articles 200 and 201 outline the governor's and president's three options when a bill is presented.
- The court clarified these provisions are deliberative and part of a dialogic federal process, not subject to one-size judicial timelines.