New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday directed the Tamil Nadu government to wait for the outcome of the Presidential Reference before proceeding with its plea challenging Governor R N Ravi’s decision to refer the Tamil Nadu Physical Education and Sports University (Amendment) Bill, 2025, to the President rather than granting assent.

A bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran said the matter would be heard after the Constitution Bench delivers its judgment on the pending issue.

“You will have to wait for the outcome of the Presidential Reference. You will have to wait hardly for four weeks. The reference has to be decided before November 21 (Gavai’s retirement),” the bench stated.

Background of the case

On September 11, the apex court had reserved its judgment on the Presidential Reference, which seeks clarity on whether Constitutional courts can set timelines for governors and the President to assent to bills passed by state legislatures.

During the hearing, senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi argued that the Governor cannot refer a bill to the President after receiving “aid and advice” from the council of ministers.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the court that a total of 381 such references had been made by governors across the country between 2015 and 2025.

“If this is to be justiciable, my lords will have two separate benches permanently for deciding these issues,” Mehta said.

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the Tamil Nadu government, submitted that the key issue was whether a Governor could examine every clause of a bill as if acting like a judge.

State’s contention

In its plea, the Tamil Nadu government argued that the Governor’s decision to reserve the Bill for the President’s consideration was “patently unconstitutional, violative of Articles 163(1) and 200 of the Constitution, and void ab initio.”

The petition noted that 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 the Bill to the President, citing alleged conflicts with Clause 7.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2018 — a move the State contends exceeded his constitutional authority.