Why This Matters
In a significant constitutional development, President Droupadi Murmu has turned to the Supreme Court, invoking its advisory jurisdiction under Article 143(1) of the Constitution. She has sought clarity on whether legal timelines can be mandated for the President and State Governors to act on Bills passed by State Legislatures—a move that could reshape Centre–State legislative dynamics.
This request comes in the wake of the Supreme Court's April 8 judgment, which directed that the President must act on Bills reserved by Governors within three months—sparking debate about judicial overreach and constitutional balance.
What’s Covered in This Article
- The Scope of Supreme Court’s Advisory Powers
- When the SC Can Decline Presidential References
- Why the Presidential Reference Cannot Reverse Past SC Judgments
- Key Legal Questions Raised by the President
- Political and Constitutional Context Behind the Move
Understanding Article 143: Supreme Court’s Advisory Role
The President can seek the Supreme Court’s opinion under Article 143(1) on questions of law or fact that are of public importance—even hypothetical ones. Though the provision grants this power, the Court is not obligated to respond. The phrase “may report to the President” gives the SC the discretion to decline.
Since 1950, this advisory route has been used over 15 times. However, it is not a substitute for judicial review or a tool to overturned judgments.
When the Supreme Court Has Said No
The Court has declined to answer Presidential references in notable cases:
1993 Ram Janmabhoomi Case: The SC refused to respond to a query about the existence of a temple before the Babri Masjid, as it was sub judice.
1982 J&K Resettlement Law Case: The SC did not issue an opinion since the law in question had already been enacted and was under legal challenge.
These examples highlight that the SC avoids giving advisory opinions when matters are pending in court or have already been legislated upon.
Advisory Opinion ≠ Appeal Mechanism
Article 143 cannot be used to overturn existing judgments. This was made clear in the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal case (1991), where the Court ruled that advisory powers should not be used to revisit settled legal questions. If the government disagrees with a ruling, it must pursue a review or curative petition—not a Presidential reference.
In this case, though the April 8 judgment came from a two-judge Bench, future challenges from other states (like Kerala or Punjab) could push the matter to a larger Constitution Bench.
What the Presidential Reference Asks: 14 Key Questions
The President’s request includes 14 specific legal questions. While some relate directly to the April 8 ruling, others raise broader constitutional concerns:
Governor’s Role (Q1–Q5): Can timelines be enforced for Governors to act on Bills? Are their decisions bound by ministerial advice? Can their actions be challenged in court?
President’s Powers (Q6–Q8): Is the President’s discretion under Article 201 justiciable? Can the SC prescribe how and when the President must act?
Scope of Judicial Review (Q9–Q10): Can courts interfere before a Bill becomes law? Can courts override the actions of the President or Governors?
SC Bench Composition (Q12): Should constitutional issues only be decided by a Constitution Bench of at least five judges?
Article 142 Powers (Q13): Does the Court’s power to do “complete justice” allow it to override other constitutional provisions?
Centre–State Disputes (Q14): Is Article 131 the sole route for resolving such conflicts?
What’s Driving the Debate? Centre vs Opposition States
The deeper conflict lies in the tussle between the Union Government and Opposition-ruled States. Governors—appointed by the Centre—have been accused of delaying or withholding assent to legislation passed by elected Assemblies.
In one prominent case, Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi withheld assent to 10 Bills, later referring them to the President. The Supreme Court's April 8 verdict was seen by many in the government as curbing executive authority by allowing courts to set deadlines and direct the President to act.
Looking Ahead
This Presidential reference is more than a legal formality—it questions the very framework of federalism and the distribution of powers between the executive and judiciary. As the Supreme Court deliberates, its response could set a precedent with far-reaching implications for Indian democracy.
.png)
