President’s Reference to the Supreme Court (Article 143)

16.05.2025

President’s Reference to the Supreme Court (Article 143)
 

 Context
 President Droupadi Murmu has referred 14 key constitutional queries to the Supreme Court under Article 143. This follows an April 2024 SC ruling that set deadlines for Governors and the President to act on state bills—prompting debates on constitutional interpretation and discretion.

Background
 Multiple state governments had accused Governors of delaying assent to bills. A notable case was Tamil Nadu, where the Governor stalled 10 bills. The Supreme Court ruled that:

• Governors must decide on bills within 3 months.
• Re-enacted bills require action within a month.
• The President must decide on reserved bills in 3 months.
   The Court also introduced the idea of “deemed assent” in cases of inaction—a concept not stated in the Constitution. This led the President to seek clarity from the Court.
   

Article 143 : Presidential Reference

• Allows the President to seek the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion on legal or constitutional questions.
• Not a judicial proceeding – it’s a constitutional consultation.
• Can be used:
  • For public importance or complex constitutional interpretation.
  • To clarify the validity of a law after it is passed.
     
• The Court’s advice is not binding, but holds significant persuasive value.
   

Why it was used recently:

• The President asked 14 constitutional questions due to a recent SC judgment.
• Key concerns:
  • The Constitution does not mention deadlines for assent on bills.
  • SC’s idea of “deemed assent” may reduce Presidential/Gubernatorial discretion.
  • Raises doubts about judicial review of decisions protected under Article 361.
     

Key Articles Involved

• Art. 143: Presidential reference to SC.
• Art. 200 & 201: Governor and President's actions on state bills.
• Art. 142: SC’s power to ensure complete justice.
• Art. 361: Immunity for President/Governors.
• Art. 131 & 145(3): Jurisdiction and five-judge bench requirement.
   

Constitutional Discretion vs Judicial Review
 Under Articles 200 and 201:

• Governors can assent, withhold, or reserve bills.
• The President may assent, withhold, or return them.
   These powers are traditionally discretionary and protected under Article 361, making them largely non-justiciable.

However, the SC maintains that no authority is above constitutional scrutiny. It has reviewed actions seen as arbitrary or unconstitutional. In the April 8 ruling, it:

• Imposed timelines
• Introduced “deemed assent”
• Used Article 142 for complete justice

This raises critical questions: Can the judiciary define how and when such discretion should be used? The reference suggests such intervention could erode constitutional balance and federalism. Yet the Court argues that long delays subvert democracy and obstruct legislative intent.