Supreme Court Considers Presidential Reference Under Article 143
The Supreme Court on Tuesday indicated a favorable stance regarding the maintainability of the Presidential reference made by President Droupadi Murmu under Article 143 of the Constitution. The reference sought the Court’s opinion on its recent ruling that fixed timelines for Governors and the President while granting assent to Bills passed by legislatures.
A Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha, and Atul S Chandurkar clarified that the President has every right to seek the Court’s view on such matters.
States Challenge Maintainability of the Reference
The observation came in response to objections raised by States like Kerala and Tamil Nadu, which questioned the maintainability of the Presidential reference. During the hearing, CJI Gavai remarked:
“When the Hon’ble President is seeking views of this Court, what is wrong in that? Are you really serious on [preliminary objections]?”
The Bench also emphasized that it was exercising advisory jurisdiction, not appellate jurisdiction. It added that while the Court can express an opinion that a previous ruling may not be correct, it cannot directly overrule the existing judgment.
Background of the Presidential Reference
The Presidential reference stems from the April 2025 ruling of the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v The Governor of Tamil Nadu & Anr. In that case, a Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan held that:
- Governors must act within a reasonable timeframe under Article 200, as indefinite delay in granting assent would undermine democratic processes.
- Although the Constitution is silent on specific timelines, constitutional silence cannot be misused to stall legislation.
- Under Article 201, the President must make decisions within three months, and any delay beyond that must be explained with written reasons communicated to the State.
Fourteen Questions Referred to the Court
Following the ruling, President Murmu referred fourteen constitutional questions to the Supreme Court. These included:
- Whether the judiciary can prescribe timelines where the Constitution remains silent.
- Whether fixing such timelines curtails the discretionary powers of the President and Governors.
- Whether judicial scrutiny of assent powers is consistent with constitutional provisions.
Opposition from States and Support from the Centre
Kerala argued that the Presidential reference indirectly attempts to overrule binding judgments without explicitly stating so, and urged the Court to return it unanswered. Tamil Nadu echoed similar concerns, asserting that the reference essentially reopens settled constitutional interpretations.
On the other hand, the Central government supported the reference, contending that the powers of the President and Governors to act on Bills are “high prerogative functions” that should not be restricted by judicially imposed timelines.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s initial view signals that the Presidential reference under Article 143 is maintainable, despite opposition from certain States. While the Court has clarified its advisory role, the forthcoming hearings will play a decisive role in shaping the balance between executive discretion and judicial oversight in legislative processes.
