The Supreme Court has ruled that the Presidential Reference seeking clarity on the powers of Governors and the President in granting assent to bills is maintainable. The Constitution Bench held that the earlier judgment concerning the Tamil Nadu Governor’s handling of bills had created uncertainty and generated doubts regarding the interpretation of Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution. Because these questions affect the functioning of constitutional authorities and the federal structure, the Court stated that an authoritative opinion was necessary.
The Court noted that the previous two-judge bench decision had laid down timelines within which Governors were expected to act on bills, including a direction that they should take decisions “forthwith” once a bill was repassed by the legislature. This judgment led to debate over whether such timelines could be judicially imposed when the Constitution itself does not specify a time limit for Governors or the President to act. Several States argued that the ruling risked upsetting the balance of powers and intruding into legislative-executive functioning. Given this background, the President sought clarity through a reference under Article 143, prompting the Supreme Court to examine the legal issues more comprehensively.
The Bench observed that the nature of questions raised in the reference qualified it as a functional one, directly relating to how governance processes operate on a daily basis. Because the uncertainty following the earlier judgment had real consequences for State legislatures and the functioning of constitutional offices, the Court concluded that the reference could not be dismissed as academic. It explained that where a judgment generates substantial ambiguity in the working of constitutional mechanisms, a reference for advisory opinion becomes appropriate to protect institutional stability.
Answering concerns that the reference amounted to an indirect appeal against the earlier ruling, the Court clarified that advisory jurisdiction under Article 143 is distinct from appellate jurisdiction. It emphasised that it was not sitting in judgment over the previous decision nor revisiting its merits. Instead, it would limit itself to answering the questions put forth by the President. The earlier ruling would continue to stand as it is, unaffected by the advisory exercise. The Court underlined that a Presidential Reference is not meant to overturn binding decisions, but to provide guidance on constitutional questions of wide public importance.
In holding the reference maintainable, the Supreme Court also noted that the earlier Tamil Nadu Governor judgment appeared to depart from certain established precedents on the scope of gubernatorial discretion and the nature of timelines in the legislative process. The Court observed that such divergence, coupled with the absence of clarity on how Articles 200 and 201 should be operationalised, highlighted the need for a comprehensive constitutional exposition. It explained that ambiguity regarding the powers of Governors and the President could impede the smooth functioning of State governments, making an authoritative interpretation essential.
The Court also acknowledged that the federal framework requires that tensions between State executives and Governors be addressed within clear constitutional boundaries. When uncertainties arise from judicial decisions, the Court said, it becomes important to settle them so that constitutional functionaries understand the limits of their powers. Providing clarity helps ensure that the legislative process is not hindered by procedural confusion or disagreements over constitutional interpretation.
By accepting the Presidential Reference, the Supreme Court signalled its readiness to clarify issues such as whether Governors must act on ministerial advice in matters relating to assent, whether timelines can be judicially imposed in the absence of explicit constitutional provision, and whether concepts like deemed assent have any place within the constitutional framework. While the Court emphasised that it would not modify the earlier judgment, it recognised the need to provide a broader constitutional understanding to guide future cases and governance practices.
In essence, the Court’s decision affirms that when a prior ruling generates significant legal uncertainty and affects the functioning of constitutional institutions, a Presidential Reference is an appropriate mechanism to obtain authoritative clarification.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.