The Supreme Court of India is set to hear reference from the President under Article 143 of the Constitution on July 22, 2025. This follows the apex court’s April ruling that imposed a three-month deadline for the President and Governors to act on Bills passed by state Assemblies. The reference seeks clarity on the timelines and powers related to the assent of such Bills, raising important questions about constitutional authority and the balance of power between the Centre and states.
Background of the Presidential Reference
The President, Droupadi Murmu, invoked Article 143(1) on May 13, 2025, requesting the Supreme Court’s opinion on the time limit for assenting to Bills reserved by Governors. This advisory jurisdiction allows the President to seek the Court’s opinion on questions of law or fact of public importance. The move came after the Supreme Court’s April 8 ruling, which set a three-month limit for the President to clear Bills, overturning Governor R N Ravi’s withholding of assent to ten Tamil Nadu Bills.
About Article 143 and Advisory Jurisdiction
Article 143 empowers the President to ask the Supreme Court for its opinion on important legal or factual questions. The Court’s opinion is advisory and not binding. Such references require a five-judge bench and are meant to address issues that are for public interest or constitutional interpretation. The advisory power is a tool for the President to obtain independent legal guidance, especially on complex constitutional matters.
Scope and Limitations of the Supreme Court’s Advisory Role
The Supreme Court may choose whether or not to respond to a presidential reference. It has declined to answer in past instances, such as the 1993 Ram Janmabhoomi case, citing pending civil suits and concerns over secularism. The Court also ruled in 1991 that Article 143 cannot be used to question or overturn its previous judicial decisions. Thus, the advisory jurisdiction is not a mechanism for review or appeal of settled rulings.
Key Issues Raised in the Current Reference
The presidential reference includes 14 legal questions, mainly related to the April 8 verdict but extending to broader constitutional concerns. These include whether smaller benches can hear constitutional matters or if only larger benches should do so, the use of Article 142’s power to deliver complete justice, and the scope of Centre-state disputes under Article 131. These questions probe the limits of judicial discretion and federal balance.
Centre-State Relations and the Role of Governors
The dispute arises from Governors, appointed by the Centre, withholding assent to Bills passed by Opposition-ruled state Assemblies. The Supreme Court’s ruling aims to prevent Governors from stalling legislation indefinitely. It also allows states to seek a writ of mandamus against the President if assent is delayed. This reflects ongoing tensions in India’s federal structure and the delicate balance between elected governments and constitutional functionaries.
Judicial Review and Parliamentary Supremacy Debate
The ruling has sparked debate on judicial overreach and parliamentary supremacy. Critics argue that the judiciary is undermining the legislative mandate by imposing timelines on the President. The Vice President and Attorney General have voiced concerns about limited judicial review and strict adherence to separation of powers. Such tensions have historical roots in India’s constitutional evolution, including landmark cases like Kesavananda Bharati that defined the limits of Parliament’s power.
Historical Context of Advisory Jurisdiction Use
Since 1950, the President has invoked Article 143 over 15 times. The advisory jurisdiction has been used to clarify complex constitutional questions but is exercised sparingly. Past references have addressed issues from religious disputes to constitutional amendments. The Supreme Court’s opinions provide guidance but do not bind future judicial decisions or government actions.
Questions for UPSC:
- Point out the constitutional provisions governing the President’s advisory jurisdiction under Article 143 and analyse its significance in India’s federal structure.
- Critically analyse the role of Governors in state of Indias and their impact on Centre-state relations with suitable examples.
- Estimate the implications of judicial review on parliamentary supremacy in India, citing landmark Supreme Court judgments.
- What is the doctrine of separation of powers? How does it operate in the context of legislative assent to Bills in Indian constitutional law?
