New Delhi, Jul 29 (Reporter) The Supreme Court today announced that it will begin hearings on the Presidential Reference concerning the constitutional powers of the Governor and the President in relation to granting or withholding assent to state legislation, under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution. The hearings will commence on August 19 and continue through September 10, with the Court making it clear that the schedule is non-negotiable and will not be altered under any circumstances. A Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Justice BR Gavai, and comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha, and AS Chandurkar, will adjudicate the Reference made by President Droupadi Murmu under Article 143 of the Constitution. The Court has directed all parties to submit their written submissions by August 12. The hearing schedule will be as follows: August 19: Kerala and Tamil Nadu governments to raise preliminary objections to the maintainability of the Reference. August 19, 20, 21, 26: Attorney General and the Union of India to argue in support of the Reference. August 28, September 2, 3, and 9: States opposing the Reference will present their arguments. September 10: Rejoinders, if any, to be heard. The Court has appointed Advocate Aman Mehta as the nodal counsel for the Union and Advocate Misha Rohatgi as the nodal counsel for the opposing States to compile and coordinate submissions. Senior Advocate KK Venugopal, appearing for the State of Kerala, informed the Bench that Kerala has filed an application contending that 11 out of the 14 questions raised in the Reference have already been answered by the Supreme Court in the Tamil Nadu Governor case. He submitted that invoking Article 143 in this instance amounts to an attempt to bypass or undermine that judgment. Senior Advocates Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi and P Wilson, appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu, informed the Court that Tamil Nadu has also challenged the maintainability of the Reference, echoing similar concerns. The Reference follows the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in the Tamil Nadu Governor case, where a two-judge bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan held that Governors must act within a three-month timeframe when deciding on assent to Bills passed by the legislature. The Court also stated that if the Governor reserves a Bill for Presidential assent, the President must likewise act within three months. Importantly, the Court ruled that if either constitutional authority fails to act within the stipulated time, a writ of mandamus can be sought by the concerned State. In that judgment, the Court also held that ten Bills kept pending for over a year had received deemed assent. The Reference by the President seeks clarity on 14 substantive constitutional questions, including, What options are available to a Governor under Article 200 when a Bill is presented? Is the Governor bound by the advice of the Council of Ministers while acting under Article 200? Is the Governor’s discretion under Article 200 subject to judicial review? Does Article 361 bar courts from reviewing the Governor’s actions under Article 200? Can courts impose timelines on Governors and prescribe how their powers should be exercised in the absence of constitutional guidelines? Is the President’s discretion under Article 201 justiciable? Can courts prescribe timelines for the President's actions under Article 201? Is the President required to consult the Supreme Court before acting on a Bill reserved by a Governor? Are the decisions of the Governor and President under Articles 200 and 201 justiciable before a law comes into force? Can orders or actions by the President or Governor be overridden using Article 142? Does a law passed by a State legislature come into force without the Governor’s assent under Article 200? Should constitutional benches determine in advance if a matter involves substantial questions of constitutional interpretation under Article 145(3)? Does Article 142 empower the Supreme Court to issue orders contrary to existing constitutional or statutory provisions? Is Article 131 the sole remedy for resolving disputes between the Union and States? The hearing promises to be a landmark event, with far-reaching implications on Centre-State relations, constitutional conventions, and judicial limits on executive discretion...////...