Explained: India’s Supreme Court faces two big questions

On April 8 this year, the Supreme Court of India ruled that governors and the president must decide on a bill submitted for approval within three months, under Article 21. In the absence of a decision within the time frame fixed by the ruling, the bill would be deemed to have received their approval.

The idea behind the April verdict, delivered by Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, was that the Governors and the president cannot delay indefinitely their decision on bills submitted for their approval.

Indian President Droupadi Murmu contested this decision and now, a special bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Atul S Chandurkar, is hearing the appeal.

President Murmu raised 14 constitutional questions under Article 143(1), arguing that the Supreme Court cannot set time limits where the Constitution is silent and objected to the doctrine of “presumed assent” introduced in the April 2025 verdict.

The central government supports the presidential reference while state governments like Tamil Nadu and Kerala, ruled by political rivals of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) at the centre, have contested the maintainability.

Opposition parties called the presidential reference a “disguised appeal” against the Supreme Court itself and argued that the The judiciary cannot review its own decisions under Article 143.

Two questions before the Supreme Court

Can the Supreme Court prescribe procedures where the Constitution remains silent?

Does the judicial application of deadlines upset the balance between the executive, the legislature and the judiciary?

Follow CNBC-TV18.com for the latest updates as arguments continue in the Supreme Court of India.