President requests Supreme Court clarification on constitutional bill timelines

Source: The post President requests Supreme Court clarification on constitutional bill timelines has been created, based on the article “What is a Presidential reference?” published in “The Hindu” on 19 May 2025. President requests Supreme Court clarification on constitutional bill timelines.

UPSC Syllabus Topic: GS Paper2-Structure, organisation and functioning of the Executive and the Judiciary—Ministries and Departments of the Government

Context: The President of India has invoked Article 143 of the Constitution to seek the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion on a set of legal questions. This move follows a recent Supreme Court judgment that laid down timelines for the President and Governors to act on Bills passed by State legislatures, sparking debate on judicial review and federal powers.

Historical Origins of Advisory Jurisdiction

1. Colonial Roots and Constitutional Legacy: The advisory power under Article 143 originates from the Government of India Act, 1935, which empowered the Governor-General to refer legal questions to the federal court. The Indian Constitution retained this mechanism to enable the judiciary to guide the executive on significant legal matters.
2. Comparative Global Practices: Canada follows a similar practice where courts can give opinions on legal references made by governments. In contrast, the U.S. Supreme Court rejects advisory opinions to uphold strict separation of powers between branches of government.

Legal Framework of Article 143

1. Scope and Procedure: Under Article 143, the President can refer legal or factual matters of public importance to the Supreme Court, based on the Council of Ministers’ advice. Article 145 requires a bench of at least five judges to hear such references.
2. Nature of the Court’s Opinion: The Supreme Court’s opinion in such cases is not legally binding and has no precedential value. However, it carries strong persuasive weight and is usually followed by both the executive and judiciary.

Notable Past References and Their Impact

1. Key Legal Clarifications

• Delhi Laws Act (1951): Clarified delegated legislation.
• Kerala Education Bill (1958): Harmonized Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles; protected minority education rights.
• Berubari Case (1960): Held that ceding territory needs a constitutional amendment.

2. Clarifying Institutional Powers

• Keshav Singh Case (1965): Defined legislative privileges.
• Presidential Poll Case (1974): Upheld elections despite vacancies.
• Special Courts Bill (1978): Court may decline vague references and must not encroach on Parliament’s domain.

3. Judiciary Appointments and Exceptions

• Third Judges Case (1998): Set guidelines for collegium system.
• Ram Janmabhoomi Case (1993): Court declined to offer an opinion—the only such instance so far.

Issues Raised in the Current Reference

1. Background and Trigger: The reference was prompted by a Supreme Court ruling that prescribed timelines for the President and Governors to act on State Bills, using a Home Ministry Office Memorandum as the basis. The Court also allowed judicial review of their decisions.
2. Main Constitutional Questions: The government has raised 14 questions, mainly on Articles 200 and 201, asking whether courts can set timelines not mentioned in the Constitution, and if actions by the President or Governors can be challenged before a Bill becomes law.
3. Article 142 and Judicial Limits: The government has sought clarity on the scope of powers under Article 142, which empowers the Court to do “complete justice” in constitutional matters.
4. Political and Legal Relevance: Centre–State tensions, especially with Opposition-ruled States, have intensified this issue. The Court had previously ruled in the Cauvery dispute (1992) that it cannot review earlier judgments in an advisory role—a principle likely to be tested again.

Question for practice:

Examine how Article 143 has been used to clarify constitutional questions and its significance in balancing executive and judicial powers in India.