{"id":337398,"date":"2025-05-19T20:30:10","date_gmt":"2025-05-19T15:00:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/blog\/?p=337398"},"modified":"2025-05-28T17:47:34","modified_gmt":"2025-05-28T12:17:34","slug":"president-requests-supreme-court-clarification-on-constitutional-bill-timelines","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/blog\/president-requests-supreme-court-clarification-on-constitutional-bill-timelines\/","title":{"rendered":"President requests Supreme Court clarification on constitutional bill timelines"},"content":{"rendered":"

Source<\/strong>: The post President requests Supreme Court clarification on constitutional bill timelines has been created, based on the article \u201cWhat is a Presidential reference?<\/strong>\u201d published in \u201cThe Hindu<\/strong>\u201d on 19 May 2025. President requests Supreme Court clarification on constitutional bill timelines.<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"President<\/p>\n

UPSC Syllabus Topic:<\/strong> GS Paper2-Structure, organisation and functioning of the Executive and the Judiciary\u2014Ministries and Departments of the Government<\/p>\n

Context<\/strong>: The President of India has invoked Article 143<\/strong> of the Constitution to seek the Supreme Court<\/strong>\u2019<\/strong>s advisory opinion<\/strong> on a set of legal questions. This move follows a recent Supreme Court judgment<\/strong> that laid down timelines for the President and Governors<\/strong> to act on Bills passed by State legislatures, sparking debate on judicial review and federal powers<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Historical Origins of Advisory Jurisdiction<\/strong><\/h2>\n
    \n
  1. Colonial Roots and Constitutional Legacy: <\/strong>The advisory power under Article 143 originates from the Government of India Act, 1935<\/strong>, 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.<\/li>\n
  2. Comparative Global Practices: <\/strong>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<\/strong> to uphold strict separation of powers<\/strong> between branches of government.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Legal Framework of Article 143<\/strong><\/h2>\n
      \n
    1. Scope and Procedure: <\/strong>Under Article 143, the President can refer legal or factual matters<\/strong> of public importance to the Supreme Court, based on the Council of Ministers<\/strong>\u2019 <\/strong>advice<\/strong>. Article 145 requires a bench of at least five judges<\/strong> to hear such references.<\/li>\n
    2. Nature of the Court<\/strong>\u2019<\/strong>s Opinion: <\/strong>The Supreme Court\u2019s opinion in such cases is not legally binding<\/strong> and has no precedential value<\/strong>. However, it carries strong persuasive weight<\/strong> and is usually followed by both the executive and judiciary.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      Notable Past References and Their Impact<\/strong><\/h2>\n
        \n
      1. Key Legal Clarifications<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n