The Presidential reference under Article 143 of the Constitution — seeking the Supreme Court’s opinion on fixed timelines for granting assent to State Bills — has triggered a wide-ranging legal and constitutional debate. The move follows the Supreme Court’s April 8 ruling, which directed that Governors and the President should clear bills within a stipulated time, invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 142.
Legal Experts Divided Over Timelines
While many constitutional experts argue that timelines are essential to prevent indefinite delays in governance, others caution against what they view as potential judicial overreach.
Former Law Minister Ashwani Kumar called the reference a “significant constitutional and political development,” emphasizing the need to resolve potential friction between the judiciary and the executive. He expressed optimism that a Constitution Bench would offer clarity and uphold federal balance.
Senior Advocate and former Additional Solicitor General Siddharth Luthra noted the reference seeks to address whether the judiciary can compel Governors and the President to act within deadlines, raising vital questions about federalism, separation of powers, and the citizens’ legislative rights.
Article 143 and the Tamil Nadu Case
Sumit Gehlot, a constitutional law expert from Fidelegal Advocates, explained that Article 143 allows the President to refer legal or factual matters of public importance to the Supreme Court. The current issue stems from the State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu case, where the delay in gubernatorial assent to state bills was challenged.
In the absence of a fixed timeline in Articles 200 and 201, the Supreme Court used Article 142 to set a three-month limit on approval of bills — a move Gehlot said aligns with previous recommendations of the Sarkaria Commission, Punchhi Commission, and a 2016 Office Memorandum from the Ministry of Home Affairs.
Gehlot emphasized that while Article 74 mandates the President to act on the Council of Ministers’ advice, indefinite withholding of assent is unjustifiable.
Is Article 142 Overextended?
Senior Advocate Adish Aggarwala, former SCBA President, welcomed the reference but warned that using Article 142 to impose binding deadlines on constitutional authorities could breach the constitutional balance. He cited a 1996 Supreme Court ruling, which advised caution in applying Article 142, describing its scope as “flexible and undefined.”
Meanwhile, Advocate Ashish Dixit observed that Supreme Court opinions under Article 143 are advisory and non-binding, citing past precedent where the Court either responded or declined Presidential queries. He reiterated that the President and Governors are now subject to limited judicial review in their official functions, though they cannot be party to judicial proceedings.
The Larger Question of Governance
At the heart of the debate is whether constitutional authorities can indefinitely delay assent to state legislation, effectively blocking governance and undermining the democratic process. The Supreme Court’s April 8 verdict — though contested — was a step toward ensuring legislative efficiency, but whether its directive can stand the test of constitutional scrutiny now rests with the advisory opinion sought under Article 143.