Archives: News

Mentor’s Comment: On July 22, 2025, the Supreme Court of India issued notices to the Union Government and all States on a Presidential Reference seeking clarity on whether the President and Governors can be judicially compelled to act within prescribed timelines on Bills passed by State legislatures. This comes in the wake of the Court’s April 8 judgment, which held that delays by Governors in granting assent to Bills are unconstitutional, and laid down judicially enforceable timelines for action. The Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, will hear the matter in detail around mid-August under Article 143(1), which allows the President to seek the Court’s advisory opinion on matters of public importance.

Today’s editorial analyses the Presidential Reference seeking clarity on whether the President and Governors can be judicially compelled to act within prescribed timelines on Bills passed by State legislatures.. This topic is important for GS Paper II (Indian Polity) in the UPSC mains exam.

_

Let’s learn!

Why in the News?

Recently, the Supreme Court of India has asked the Union Government and all States to respond to a question raised by the President: Can the President and Governors be legally forced to take action within a fixed time on Bills passed by State Assemblies?

What is the significance of Article 143(1) in constitutional interpretation in the context of Presidential Reference?

• Presidential Power to Seek Advice: Article 143(1) empowers the President of India to seek the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion on questions of law or matters of public importance. Eg: In the Berubari Union case (1960), the President referred a question about the transfer of territory to Pakistan.
• Advisory Role of the Supreme Court: The Supreme Court’s opinion is not binding, but carries high persuasive value in future interpretations and policy decisions. Eg: The Court’s opinion on the Ayodhya land issue (1993) was declined, as the reference was seen to violate secularism.
• Clarifies Constitutional Dilemmas: Helps resolve grey areas in constitutional practice without formal litigation, especially in cases involving federal disputes or institutional responsibilities. Eg: The 2024 Presidential Reference seeks clarity on whether the SC can set timelines for Governors or the President in assenting to Bills.

Why did Tamil Nadu’s plea over the Governor’s inaction raise constitutional concerns?

• Delay Violates Constitutional Mandate: The Governor’s inaction on State Bills breaches Article 200, which requires prompt decision assent, reservation, or withholding on legislative proposals.
• Threatens Federalism and State Autonomy: Prolonged inaction undermines the authority of the elected State government, disrupting the federal balance enshrined in the Constitution.
• Triggers Judicial and Political Tensions: Such inaction forces judicial intervention, leading to constitutional ambiguity and disputes over the separation of powers between constitutional offices.

How did the April 8 SC verdict reshape the Centre-State power balance?

• Fixed a Time Limit for Governors’ Decisions: The Supreme Court ruled that Governors must act on Bills “as soon as possible”, preventing indefinite delays. Eg: In Tamil Nadu’s case, the Governor had withheld action on multiple Bills for months, leading to constitutional standoff.
• Clarified Limits on Withholding Assent: The Court emphasized that Governors cannot sit on Bills indefinitely or reject them arbitrarily, reinforcing the legislative supremacy of elected State governments. Eg: The verdict curbed the misuse of Article 200 by Governors in opposition-ruled States.
• Reinforced Cooperative Federalism: The judgment upheld that constitutional functionaries must act in harmony, ensuring Centre-State relations are based on trust and constitutional propriety. Eg: The verdict serves as a warning against politicized Governor roles that disrupt the federal structure.

When can the Supreme Court refuse a Presidential Reference?

• Lack of Public Importance: If the issue is not of sufficient public or constitutional importance, the Court may decline to give its opinion. Eg: Political or non-legal matters without broader legal impact.
• Hypothetical or Vague Questions: The Court avoids answering abstract, premature, or unclear issues. Eg: In the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal case (1992), the Court refused as the matter was not ripe for consideration.
• Risk of Judicial Overreach: If the reference could interfere with pending litigation, reopen settled judgments, or encroach on executive/legislative powers, the Court may refuse. Eg: Questions that challenge or revisit prior rulings.

How does the non-binding nature of Article 143 opinions affect jurisprudence?

• Encourages Deliberative Democracy: Since the opinion is not binding, it invites parliamentary debate and public discourse rather than closing the matter purely through judicial authority. Eg: After the SC’s advisory opinion in the In re Kerala Education Bill, 1957, political discussions shaped the final policy on minority education rights.
• Enables Judicial Restraint in Political Questions: It allows the Court to share constitutional insight without overstepping into executive or legislative domains, maintaining the separation of powers. Eg: In the Ayodhya Reference case (1994), the SC declined to answer a politically loaded question, exercising restraint.
• Promotes Flexibility in Constitutional Practice: Non-binding opinions allow the executive to consider but not be bound by the Court’s interpretation, creating space for evolving legal practices over time. Eg: The opinion in In re Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (1991) offered legal clarity, but the Centre retained room to manage interstate negotiations.

Way forward: 

• Make Advisory Opinions More Transparent and Accessible: Publish all Presidential References and advisory opinions in simple language to promote public understanding and ensure informed civic debate on constitutional matters.
• Encourage Parliamentary Follow-Up: Parliament should deliberate on Supreme Court’s advisory views under Article 143(1) to align legislation or executive action with constitutional principles while respecting the non-binding nature of such opinions.