Supreme Court of India is set to deliberate on July 22 on a Presidential reference made under Article 143(1) of the Constitution.

In a significant constitutional development, the Supreme Court of India is set to deliberate on July 22 on a Presidential reference made under Article 143(1) of the Constitution.

The reference seeks clarity on the legal contours and limitations of the powers of the President and Governors about granting or withholding assent to Bills passed by state legislatures.

The reference follows the Supreme Court’s landmark verdict delivered on April 8, 2024, which imposed timelines for the President and Governors to act on pending Bills, despite the Constitution itself not specifying any such time frame.

First, the Court directed that the President must decide on Bills reserved for consideration within three months of receipt and that any delay beyond that must be justified with reasons conveyed to the state.

Now, the President, Droupadi Murmu, has formally sought the Supreme Court’s opinion through a 14-question reference, pointing to the constitutional ambiguity created by the April verdict and its broader implications on the doctrine of separation of powers, federalism, and the discretionary authority of constitutional functionaries.

The five-judge Constitution Bench, comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha, and A S Chandurkar, will examine the questions raised.

Among the key questions raised by the President are:

• Whether the actions of the President and Governors under Articles 200 and 201 are justiciable in courts, particularly in the absence of specific timelines in the Constitution.
• Whether the Supreme Court can judicially impose timelines or procedures for the exercise of discretion by constitutional heads.
• Whether Article 361, which provides immunity to the President and Governors from legal proceedings during their term, bars judicial scrutiny of their decisions on pending Bills.
• Whether there exists a concept of “deemed assent” within the constitutional framework, and whether courts can interfere before a Bill has become law.
• Whether courts, particularly under Article 142, can substitute constitutional orders or discretion exercised by the President or Governor.

The reference also revisits long-standing tensions between judicial authority and executive discretion in a federal setup. It highlights how state governments have increasingly approached the Supreme Court under Article 32, invoking fundamental rights, instead of using Article 131, which deals with inter-governmental disputes and is the appropriate route for federal conflicts.

The reference further underscores that Articles 200 and 201, which regulate the legislative assent process, involve polycentric and sensitive considerations, such as:

• Federalism
• National security
• Uniformity of laws
• Institutional balance and separation of powers

The President’s reference emphasizes that if left unresolved, these issues may erode the deliberative space accorded to the constitutional offices of the Governor and President, and potentially undermine the spirit of cooperative federalism.

In the April ruling that triggered this development, the Court had struck down Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi’s move to withhold assent from 10 Bills which had already been reconsidered and passed again by the state Assembly. The two-judge bench had declared the Governor’s action illegal and said it lacked constitutional backing, prompting a need for broader clarification from a Constitution Bench.

Through this reference, President Murmu seeks to ensure institutional clarity and legal certainty over a vital but often contested area of constitutional governance, calling on the top court to define the extent, scope, and limits of discretion exercised by the Union and state heads.

As the nation watches closely, this upcoming hearing is expected to have a far-reaching impact on legislative processes, Centre-state relations, and the interpretation of constitutional powers vested in India’s top offices.

#SupremeCourt #Article143 #PresidentialReference #GovernorPowers #Article200 #Article201 #Justiciability #Federalism #SeparationOfPowers #IndianConstitution #PresidentMurmu #SCConstitutionBench #JudicialReview #AssentToBills #DeemedAssentDebate #CentreStateRelations