In a significant constitutional development, a five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court of India, led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, is scheduled to begin hearing a presidential reference on July 22, 2025.
The reference seeks the apex court’s advisory opinion under Article 143 of the Constitution on a range of vital legal and constitutional questions, primarily surrounding the legality of imposing timelines on the President and Governors for acting on state legislation.
This hearing is especially momentous as it touches on the delicate balance of powers between the legislature, executive, and the judiciary, as well as the dynamics of Centre-State relations in India’s federal structure.
Composition of the Constitution Bench
The Constitution Bench includes the three most senior judges of the court:
-
Chief Justice Bhushan R Gavai,
-
Justice Surya Kant, and
-
Justice Vikram Nath,
…alongside justices P.S. Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar.
Importantly, four of these five judges are either current or future Chief Justices of India:
-
Justice Surya Kant is set to become CJI in November 2025,
-
Justice Vikram Nath in February 2027, and
-
Justice Narasimha in October 2027.
This composition underscores the constitutional significance and the long-term implications of the questions being examined.
#ConstitutionBench #FutureCJIs #JudicialLeadership
Background: The April 8 Supreme Court Judgment
This presidential reference originates from a judgment delivered on April 8, 2025, by a bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, which laid down explicit timelines for constitutional functionaries. The verdict, responding to a case involving 10 long-pending bills from Tamil Nadu, directed that:
-
Governors must either grant or withhold assent to re-enacted bills “forthwith” or within one month.
-
If a Governor reserves a bill for the President, this should be done within three months of its presentation.
-
The President, upon receiving a bill from a Governor, must decide within three months.
Notably, the court went further by invoking Article 142, stating that the Governor’s inaction was illegal and that the concerned bills would be “deemed to have received assent.”
#Article142 #GovernorInaction #DeemedAssent
Presidential Reference: Article 143 Invoked
In response to the April judgment, President Droupadi Murmu, on May 13, invoked Article 143—a rarely used provision that allows the President to seek the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion on “questions of law or fact of such nature and of such public importance” that it is expedient to obtain the Court’s view.
The reference, prepared by the Attorney General R. Venkataramani, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, and the Union Law Ministry, poses 14 complex legal questions. These include:
-
Whether timelines can be judicially imposed on the President or Governors when the Constitution remains silent on the matter.
-
Whether such decisions can be judicially reviewed before a bill becomes law.
-
Whether the Supreme Court can direct or substitute the discretion of the President or Governor by invoking Article 142.
-
Whether Article 361, which offers constitutional immunity to the President and Governors, prevents judicial scrutiny of such decisions.
-
Whether such disputes ought to be addressed through Article 131 (inter-governmental disputes) instead of writ jurisdiction.
-
Whether Governors are mandatorily bound to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers under Article 200.
These questions go to the very core of constitutional governance and federalism in India.
#Article143 #Federalism #JudicialReview #ExecutiveDiscretion
Constitution Bench Formation: Procedural Debate Resolved
Before setting up the Constitution Bench, there was internal deliberation within the judiciary over whether a three-judge bench could first conduct preliminary hearings and issue notices before referring the matter to a five-judge bench. However, after an in-depth procedural and historical analysis, the Supreme Court Registry advised that the matter—falling squarely under Article 145(3)—involves “substantial questions of constitutional law” and must therefore be taken up directly by a Constitution Bench.
The Registry’s view was rooted in past precedents under Article 143, which show that such references have historically been handled by benches of at least five judges, right from the outset.
#Article145 #SupremeCourtRules #JudicialProcedure
Legal and Political Implications
The issues raised by the presidential reference are not merely academic. They will directly impact how laws are made and enforced across India. According to officials involved in the reference drafting:
“This is not just about one judgment. It is about the constitutional architecture—about how laws are made, who holds accountability, and what checks and balances exist between different constitutional authorities.”
If the Supreme Court rules in favor of prescribed timelines, it could enhance legislative efficiency, ensuring Governors and the President act within reasonable periods. On the other hand, such a ruling could be interpreted as a judicial overreach, encroaching on the discretionary space of the executive.
Moreover, this case will redefine the application of Article 142, which allows the apex court to pass any order necessary to do “complete justice.” Whether this article can override constitutional silence or implied powers will have far-reaching ramifications for future judgments and the scope of judicial activism.
#JudicialOverreach #ConstitutionalSilence #Article142Debate
Historical Context: Article 143 References
Since Independence, Article 143 has been invoked only 14 times, underlining the gravity of the current reference. Though not binding, the Court’s opinions in these cases have often shaped constitutional interpretation, including landmark issues like:
-
The Kerala Education Bill (1958),
-
The Berubari Union case (1960), and
-
The Ayodhya land dispute settlement (2019).