Supreme Court to clarify powers over bill timelines

Source: The post Supreme Court to clarify powers over bill timelines has been created, based on the article “Can Presidential Reference change a judgment?” published in “The Hindu” on 24th July 2025

UPSC Syllabus Topic: GS Paper 2- Indian Constitution

Context: The Supreme Court has taken up a Presidential Reference questioning whether constitutional authorities like the President and Governors can be judicially compelled to act within specific timeframes on State Bills. This follows a Supreme Court judgment on April 8 that imposed timelines on such actions and led to a request for judicial clarity. Supreme Court to clarify powers over bill timelines

For detailed information on President requests Supreme Court clarification on constitutional bill timelines read this article here

Origin and Scope of the Presidential Reference

1. Trigger from Tamil Nadu Case: The Reference stems from the Tamil Nadu government’s challenge to Governor R.N. Ravi’s delay in assenting to 10 re-passed Bills. The Supreme Court ruled this inaction illegal and, for the first time, imposed timelines on the President and Governors.
2. Content of the Reference: President Droupadi Murmu submitted 14 legal questions following the April 8 ruling. The core query is whether courts can direct constitutional authorities on timelines and procedures in handling Bills.
3. Scheduled Proceedings: A Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice Gavai has taken up the matter. Detailed hearings are expected to begin in mid-August to address the constitutional issues involved.

For detailed information on Supreme Court limits Governor and President assent powers read this article here

Constitutional Basis for Advisory Opinion

1. Advisory Jurisdiction under Article 143(1): Article 143(1) allows the President to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion on matters of law or public importance. The court may advise only if the issue is not part of any ongoing litigation.
2. Limits of the Court’s Role: The court can only address the specific questions mentioned in the Reference. It cannot expand its opinion beyond what the President has asked.
3. Discretion to Decline Reference: The Supreme Court is not obligated to respond. It may refuse to do so with reasons, as seen in the 1978 and 1993 cases, including the Ayodhya-Babri Masjid dispute, where political motives were suspected.

Nature and Authority of Advisory Opinions

1. Advisory vs. Binding Nature: Although advisory opinions carry persuasive weight, they are not legally binding precedents. Article 141 binds only those decisions given in adjudicatory jurisdiction.
2. Conflicting Views and Practices: In past cases like R.K. Garg, advisory views were treated as binding. However, this contradicted earlier warnings that such opinions should not be binding on other courts.
3. April 8 Judgment Still Prevails: The April 8 ruling, delivered under Article 141, remains authoritative. Any advisory opinion from the present Reference will not override its conclusions.

Possibility of Modifying Past Judgments

1. Limits of Article 143(1): The Supreme Court clarified in the Cauvery Water Disputes Reference that Article 143 cannot be used to overturn settled judicial decisions. Legal challenges must come through review or curative petitions.
2. Scope for Clarification: However, past rulings like Natural Resources Allocation (2012) show that the court can clarify or elaborate legal positions without overturning earlier decisions or affecting parties’ rights.
3. Refining Without Reversing: In 1998, the court adjusted certain aspects of judicial appointments through a Reference while keeping the core ruling intact. Similarly, the April 8 judgment could be refined but not reversed in substance.

Question for practice:

Discuss whether the Supreme Court can be compelled to enforce timelines on constitutional authorities like the President and Governors for assenting to State Bills.