Context & Trigger
- On July 22, 2025, the Supreme Court issued notices to the Union and States on a Presidential Reference seeking clarity on the powers and timelines for the President and Governors in assenting to State Bills.
- Triggered by the Supreme Court’s April 8 judgment which ruled Governor R.N. Ravi’s delay in assenting to 10 Tamil Nadu Bills as illegal and unconstitutional.
- The April ruling imposed judicially enforceable timelines for constitutional authorities to act on State Bills—a first in Indian constitutional jurisprudence.
Relevance : GS 2(Polity and Constitution )
Core Constitutional Question
- Can the President or Governor be judicially compelled to act within a prescribed timeframe on Bills passed by State legislatures?
- Does such judicial compulsion violate the discretionary space constitutionally granted to these authorities?
Role of Article 143(1)
- Provides advisory jurisdiction to the Supreme Court when the President refers questions of law or fact of public importance.
- Such questions need no ongoing litigation, and the court may accept or decline the Reference.
- The Supreme Court is not bound to answer; it has discretion (e.g., declined Ayodhya Reference in 1993 for violating secularism).
Scope & Limits of Advisory Opinions
- The court’s opinion must remain within the scope of the Reference—it cannot enlarge or rewrite the issues referred.
- While not binding precedents, advisory opinions carry high persuasive value (as seen in R.K. Garg case).
- Still, Article 141 binds courts only to decisions arising from the court’s adjudicatory (not advisory) jurisdiction.
Can Advisory Opinions Overturn Judicial Rulings?
- No. As per precedent (e.g., Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal case), Article 143 cannot be used to reverse settled judgments.
- The April 8 decision, passed under Article 141, remains binding unless altered via review or curative petition.
- However, the court may clarify or refine its legal interpretation under advisory jurisdiction without overturning the earlier verdict (e.g., Natural Resources Allocation case, 2012).
Key Precedents in Use of Presidential References
- 1998 Collegium Reform Reference: Court refined judicial appointments process while upholding core judgment of 1993.
- Ayodhya Reference (1993): Declined on constitutional and secularism grounds.
- Special Courts Bill (1978): Clarified opinions are not binding but can influence future rulings.
Governance Implications
- The Reference has arisen due to increasing friction between State governments and Governors, often politically appointed.
- Clarification may set clear timelines and processes to ensure federal balance and legislative autonomy of States.
- Could reinforce judicial oversight over executive inaction, while preserving constitutional boundaries.
What Lies Ahead
- A Constitution Bench led by CJI Gavai will begin detailed hearings by mid-August.
- The Reference will test the delicate balance between constitutional morality, federalism, and judicial review.
- Outcome may redefine how constitutional functionaries are held accountable for delays that stall governance.
