Introduction 

President Droupadi Murmu has invoked the Supreme Court's advisory jurisdiction under Article 143(1) of Constitution of India,1950 (COI) seeking opinion on whether timelines can be imposed on constitutional functionaries for assenting to Bills. This reference, containing fourteen questions of constitutional significance, directly challenges the Supreme Court's 8th April ruling that established a three-month deadline for decisions on Bills reserved for presidential consideration. The reference represents a significant escalation in the ongoing constitutional dialogue between the judiciary and executive regarding the scope of their respective powers. 

What Constitutional Provisions are Central to this Reference? 

• Article 143(1) of COI empowers the President to seek the Supreme Court's opinion on questions of law or fact that have arisen or are likely to arise and are of such nature and public importance that obtaining the Court's opinion is expedient. 
• Article 200 states Governor's options upon presentation of Bills: grant assent, withhold assent, reserve for President's consideration, or return the Bill for reconsideration with specific amendments (except Money Bills). 
• Article 201 details the President's powers regarding Bills reserved by Governors, including options to assent, withhold assent, or direct the Governor to return the Bill for reconsideration. 
• Article 361 provides immunity to President and Governors from judicial proceedings for exercise of powers and performance of duties, raising questions about justiciability of their constitutional functions. 
• Article 142 grants the Supreme Court extraordinary powers to "do complete justice" in any matter before it, the scope of which is being questioned in the reference. 
• Article 145(3) requires constitutional interpretation questions to be heard by a minimum of five judges, establishing a procedural safeguard for matters of constitutional importance. 
• Article 131 establishes the Supreme Court's exclusive jurisdiction in disputes between the Union and States, thereby creating a special mechanism for resolution of federal conflicts. 
• The President's letter explicitly states that Articles 200 and 201 "do not stipulate any time frame" for constitutional functionaries to act on Bills, directly challenging the Court's imposition of deadlines. 

What Questions has the President Raised Regarding Gubernatorial and Presidential Powers? 

• Questions 1-2 explore the Governor's constitutional options when a Bill is presented and whether the Governor is bound by the Council of Ministers' advice while exercising these options under Article 200. 
• Question 3 examines whether the exercise of constitutional discretion by the Governor under Article 200 is justiciable, questioning judicial review of gubernatorial decisions. 
• Question 4 specifically addresses whether Article 361 creates an absolute bar to judicial review of Governor's actions under Article 200, touching on immunity provisions. 
• Question 5 challenges the Court's authority to impose timelines and prescribe the manner of exercise of powers by the Governor in the absence of constitutionally prescribed time limits. 
• Questions 6-7 mirror questions 3 and 5 in relation to the President's powers under Article 201, questioning justiciability and the Court's authority to impose timelines. 
• Question 8 explores whether the President is required to seek the Supreme Court's advice under Article 143 when considering Bills reserved by Governors. 
• Question 9 addresses whether judicial review is permissible at a stage before a Bill becomes law, challenging pre-enactment scrutiny of legislation. 
• Question 10 specifically questions whether the Court can substitute constitutional powers of the President/Governor through orders under Article 142. 
• Question 11 seeks clarity on whether a law made by the State legislature is in force without the Governor's assent under Article 200. 
• Question 12 challenges procedural aspects, asking whether any bench must first determine if a case involves substantial questions of constitutional interpretation requiring referral to a five-judge bench. 
• Question 13 examines the limits of Article 142 powers, asking whether they extend to directions contradicting existing substantive or procedural constitutional provisions. 
• Question 14 explores whether the Constitution bars any jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in Union-State disputes except through Article 131 suits. 
• These fourteen questions collectively challenge the Supreme Court's April 8 judgment and seek to redefine constitutional boundaries between executive discretion and judicial oversight. 

What is the Supreme Court's Advisory Jurisdiction? 

• Article 143(1) permits the President to seek Supreme Court's opinion on questions of law or fact that have arisen or are likely to arise and are of such nature and public importance that obtaining its opinion is deemed expedient. 
• This jurisdiction extends beyond questions of law found in the Government of India Act, 1935 to include questions of fact and certain hypothetical scenarios as well. 
• The Supreme Court's opinion under this advisory jurisdiction is not binding unlike a judicial ruling, serving as guidance rather than enforceable precedent. 
• Article 145(3) mandates that references must be heard by a bench of at least five judges, ensuring collective wisdom on matters of constitutional importance. 
• The Court has discretion to decline answering references as Article 143(1) uses the term "may" report its opinion, establishing that responding is not mandatory. 
• After such hearing as it thinks fit, the Supreme Court reports to the President its opinion, with the majority view prevailing in case of disagreement. 
• Advisory jurisdiction provides the President means to seek independent advice on constitutional matters, especially when acting on the aid and advice of the Cabinet. 
• The reference mechanism creates a unique constitutional dialogue between the executive and judiciary outside the traditional adversarial litigation framework. 
• This jurisdiction has been invoked sparingly but strategically throughout India's constitutional history, with at least 15 references since 1950. 
• The process allows complex constitutional questions to be addressed abstractly without the constraints of specific litigation facts. 

What Historical Cases Define the Limits of Advisory Jurisdiction? 

• In the 1993 Ayodhya reference, the Supreme Court unanimously declined to answer President Shankar Dayal Sharma's question regarding the existence of a Hindu temple prior to the construction of the Babri Masjid, as civil suits on the dispute were pending before courts. 
  • Justices AM Ahmedi and SP Bharucha specifically declined to answer the Ayodhya reference on grounds that it was against secularism and hence unconstitutional, establishing that references contradicting constitutional principles may be declined. 
• The Court refused to answer the 1982 J&K resettlement law reference after the Bill received Governor's assent, demonstrating that supervening events may render a reference moot. 
• In its 1991 Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal opinion, the SC categorically established that Article 143 cannot be used as a mechanism for the executive to seek review or reversal of established judicial decisions. 
  • The Cauvery opinion explicitly stated that the Court cannot "countenance a situation" where a reference invites opinions on questions already settled by the Court, prohibiting disguised appeals through references. 
• The Special Courts Bill Reference (1978) established parameters for the Court's response to references involving questions of constitutional validity of proposed legislation. 
• The In Re: Presidential Poll v. Unknown (1974) demonstrated the Court's willingness to answer references on urgent matters of constitutional procedure where time was of the essence. 
• In the Kerala Education Bill Reference (1958), the Court answered questions about proposed legislation's constitutional validity but clarified that its opinion was advisory only. 
• The Reference on Delhi Laws Act (1951) was one of the earliest references involving delegation of legislative power, establishing precedent on Parliament's power to delegate. 
• These historical precedents collectively establish that while the Court generally responds to genuine constitutional questions, it declines references that seek to circumvent established judicial processes or decisions. 

What Implications Does This Reference Hold for India's Federal Structure? 

• The reference emerges from ongoing disputes between centrally appointed Governors and Opposition-ruled state governments, reflecting deeper tensions in India's federal architecture. 
• Governor R.N. Ravi's withholding of assent to ten Tamil Nadu Bills triggered the April 8 judgment, which set a three-month deadline for decisions and allowed states to seek judicial remedy through writs of mandamus. 
• Similar controversies exist in Kerala where Governor Arif Mohammed Khan delayed signing Bills, and in Punjab with Governor Banwarilal Purohit, indicating systematic concerns across multiple states. 
• The outcome will determine state legislatures' ability to implement laws despite gubernatorial opposition, potentially redefining the balance between elected state governments and appointed Governors. 
• The reference represents an escalation in the institutional conflict between judiciary and executive over separation of powers, with Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar openly criticizing the ruling as undermining parliamentary supremacy. 
• Attorney General R. Venkataramani argued that the President "was not heard" before the Court passed directives for her office, raising procedural fairness concerns. 
• The President's questioning of the concept of "deemed assent" as "alien to the constitutional scheme" challenges a key mechanism the Court introduced to prevent indefinite delays in the assent process. 
• Historical parallels exist with earlier constitutional conflicts between Parliament and judiciary over property rights in the first three decades after independence, which resulted in constitutional amendments and landmark rulings. 
• The reference touches upon the fundamental issue of whether gubernatorial powers are meant to be checks on state legislatures or should be exercised in harmony with democratic mandates. 
• By questioning whether judicial review is appropriate at the pre-enactment stage, the reference seeks to insulate the legislative process from judicial intervention until a Bill becomes law. 

Conclusion 

This presidential reference marks a critical juncture in India's constitutional jurisprudence concerning separation of powers and federal relations. The Supreme Court's opinion will potentially reshape the constitutional boundaries between executive discretion and judicial oversight, with significant implications for legislative processes across states. The reference, by questioning both substantive and procedural aspects of the Supreme Court's April 8 judgment, challenges the judiciary's expanding role in governance matters while seeking to redefine the constitutional relationship between the Union, States, and constitutional functionaries.