A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Bhushan R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran said the matter would be taken up after the constitution bench delivers its judgment on the reference concerning the powers and timelines for governors and the President to act on bills passed by state legislatures. "You will have to wait for the outcome of the presidential reference. It will hardly take four weeks. The reference has to be decided before November 21," observed the bench, referring to CJI Gavai's retirement date. The five-judge bench had, on September 11, reserved its verdict on the reference, which seeks the Supreme Court's opinion on whether constitutional courts can prescribe timelines for governors and the President in granting assent to state bills. During the hearing on Friday, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Tamil Nadu, argued that the governor had no authority to refer the Bill to the President after receiving the "aid and advice" of the council of ministers. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta countered that such matters cannot be made justiciable, noting that governors across India have referred 381 bills to the President between 2015 and 2025. "If every such reference becomes litigable, my lords will need two permanent benches to deal with them," he said. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, also representing the state, questioned the governor's approach, remarking, "Can the governor sit and examine every clause of a Bill like a judge?" In its petition, the Tamil Nadu government has described the Governor's decision to reserve the Bill for the President's consideration as "patently unconstitutional, violative of Articles 163(1) and 200 of the Constitution, and void ab initio." The state said the Bill was sent to the governor for assent on May 6, 2025, along with the chief minister's advice to approve it. However, on July 14, the governor referred it to the President, citing an alleged conflict with Clause 7.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2018 -- a move the state contends exceeds his constitutional powers. On September 11, a five-judge bench reserved its opinion on the rare presidential reference questioning whether courts could prescribe timelines for the President and governors to act on state bills, even as it raised the question on the day whether the judiciary should feel "powerless and sit idle" when another wing of democracy fails to discharge its constitutional duties. The bench comprised CJI Gavai and justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar. The presidential reference was made by President Droupadi Murmu under Article 143, after a two-judge bench's April 8 ruling in State of Tamil Nadu Vs governor of Tamil Nadu that imposed a one-month deadline on governors to act on re-enacted bills and a three-month limit on the President even though the Constitution itself is silent on timelines. The judgment prompted the President to seek the top court's opinion on 14 questions, including whether courts can fill constitutional silences by prescribing time limits, whether such directions impinge on discretion constitutionally vested in governors and the President, and whether assent-related functions are justiciable. While the Centre, through Attorney General R Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, has urged the constitution bench to hold that the Court's April 8 judgment, which laid down deadlines for gubernatorial and presidential assent, "does not lay down the correct law" and should carry no precedential value. Senior advocates appearing for various states, including Kapil Sibal for West Bengal, Abhishek Manu Singhvi for Tamil Nadu, and Arvind Datar for Punjab opposed the Union's plea to reopen the Tamil Nadu ruling, insisting that Article 143 cannot be used to unsettle binding precedent. Apart from these states, Punjab, Telangana and Karnataka have also opposed the presidential reference.