LawLoveLegal

Introduction The Supreme Court’s five-judge Constitution Bench has clarified a major constitutional question: courts cannot impose judicial timelines on governors or the President while granting assent to state legislation . This advisory opinion, delivered under Article 143 of the Constitution, reinforces the foundational principle of separation of powers , particularly regarding the relationship between the judiciary, the executive, and the federal structure. This ruling overturns an earlier two-judge judgment that had introduced strict timelines and the concept of "deemed assent," creating significant constitutional confusion. The Constitution Bench has now restored clarity and reaffirmed constitutional boundaries. Background of the Presidential Reference In May, the President of India referred a set of 14 constitutional questions to the Supreme Court under Article 143 . These questions arose from an April 8 judgment that: Imposed strict timelines on governors a...

The Supreme Court of India is currently deliberating a significant constitutional question: whether it can prescribe fixed timelines for Governors and the President to act on state bills, despite the Constitution’s explicit language requiring them to act only “as soon as possible.” Background: The Presidential Reference under Article 143 The issue stems from an April 8 ruling by a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court that imposed deadlines — three months for the President to decide on bills and one month for governors to act on re-enacted bills. The judgment sparked intense debate, leading to a Presidential Reference under Article 143 . The reference, sent by President Droupadi Murmu in May, places 14 questions before the Court, including whether judicially crafting procedural rules where the Constitution is silent amounts to rewriting constitutional provisions . The matter is being heard by a five-judge constitution bench led by Chief Justice Bhushan R. Gavai , with Justic...