Presidential Reference on SC’s Verdict Regarding Timelines for Bill Assent Sparks Constitutional Debate



Background: Presidential Reference under Article 143

In a significant constitutional development, the President of India has invoked Article 143 of the Constitution to seek the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion on the issue of timelines for granting assent to state legislature-passed bills. This move comes in the wake of the Supreme Court’s landmark April 8, 2025 verdict, which attempted to establish fixed time frames for the President and Governors to approve or act upon bills passed by state legislatures.

The Trigger: SC's April 8 Verdict on Gubernatorial Delays

The issue originates from the case State of Tamil Nadu vs. Governor of Tamil Nadu & Anr., where the Tamil Nadu Government challenged the delay by the Governor in granting assent to several bills passed by the state assembly. The Supreme Court, citing the absence of a specific timeline under Articles 200 and 201, invoked Article 142 to direct the President and Governors to act within three months on such matters, thereby seeking to fill a legislative vacuum.

Legal Experts Divided: Efficiency vs. Discretion

Legal experts remain divided on the Court’s intervention. One school of thought believes that setting timelines enhances efficiency and accountability. Others, however, argue that Articles 200 and 201 allow discretion and that no specific time frames are prescribed under the Constitution.

Former Law Minister Ashwani Kumar described the reference as both politically and constitutionally significant, as it raises questions about the separation of powers between the judiciary and executive. He expressed hope that a constitutional bench would provide clarity, thereby avoiding potential conflict between organs of the state.


Federal Concerns and Constitutional Boundaries

Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, former ASG, highlighted the federal implications of the reference, questioning whether constitutional authorities like the Governor and President can indefinitely withhold assent. He emphasized the broader issue of governance and citizen rights, pointing out that indefinite delays obstruct the legislative process and may infringe upon the right to effective governance.

Article 143: The President’s Advisory Tool

Sumit Gehlot, a constitutional law expert from Fidelegal Advocates, clarified that under Article 143, the President can seek the Supreme Court’s opinion on matters of public importance—legal or factual. The current reference seeks clarity on whether the Court’s April 8 directive, especially the timeline stipulation, is constitutionally sustainable.

Gehlot pointed out that Article 74 of the Constitution obligates the President to act on the advice of the Council of Ministers, limiting independent decision-making. Hence, the reference's focus is not just on the Court's opinion but on its implications for executive powers and constitutional authority.

Past Precedents and Policy Recommendations

The Court’s directive to resolve bill assent delays within three months aligns with earlier policy recommendations:

  • Sarkaria Commission

  • Punchhi Commission

  • Ministry of Home Affairs' Office Memorandum (Dated: 4 February 2016)

These documents have advocated a reasonable and consistent timeline for decision-making by constitutional authorities. Advocate Gehlot emphasized that indefinite delays in bill assent are legally indefensible and threaten democratic functioning.

Supreme Court’s Power under Article 142

Advocate Ashish Dixit noted that while the President can seek the Court’s opinion, the response is advisory and not binding. He referred to a 2002 reference in which the Court held that it could choose to answer or decline the President’s questions. Importantly, Article 142—empowering the Court to do “complete justice”—is being tested in this context, particularly whether it can be used to bind constitutional functionaries to deadlines.

Caution on Overreach: Aggarwala’s Observation

Senior Advocate Adish Aggarwala, former President of the Supreme Court Bar Association, welcomed the reference but advised caution. He acknowledged that while Articles 200 and 201 don’t contain fixed timelines, assent is expected within a reasonable period. He warned that applying Article 142 to mandate deadlines may go beyond its intended flexibility, citing a 1996 Supreme Court ruling that held Article 142’s scope must remain undefined and adaptable.

Conclusion: A Test of Judicial and Executive Balance

The current presidential reference under Article 143 brings to light critical constitutional questions regarding:

  • The scope of judicial power to regulate executive timelines.

  • The discretionary authority of Governors and the President.

  • The future of federal legislative governance in India.

While the Supreme Court's April 8 ruling aims to reduce legislative stagnation, the reference invites a nuanced debate on constitutional propriety, judicial overreach, and the integrity of the separation of powers doctrine.

All eyes now turn to the Supreme Court’s constitutional bench for what could become a landmark advisory opinion shaping the boundaries of federal executive action and judicial directives in India’s democracy.


Comments

Post a Comment