Vice-President’s remarks on SC order evoke mixed views from legal luminaries
April 19, 2025
Foreign law firms in India: A step forward or a legal dilemma?
May 19, 2025
A Presidential reference has ignited legal discussions regarding the Supreme Court’s directive to establish timelines for Governors and the President to approve State Bills. Experts are divided on whether the court can impose binding deadlines on constitutional authorities through Article 142. The core issue revolves around the balance between federalism, governance, and the discretionary powers of constitutional authorities.
The Presidential reference under Article 143, seeking the Supreme Court’s opinion on the timelines for granting assent to State Bills, has sparked intense legal debate. The issue stems from the Supreme Court’s April 8 verdict, which aimed to establish fixed time frames for Presidential and Gubernatorial approval of state legislature-passed bills.
While some legal experts argue that such timelines enhance efficiency and prevent undue delays, others contend that Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution allow discretionary interpretation, as they do not prescribe specific limits. Critics further question whether the Supreme Court’s extraordinary powers under Article 142 can be used to impose binding deadlines on constitutional authorities.
Former Law Minister AshwKumar described the reference as a significant constitutional and political development, touching upon the boundaries between the judiciary and the executive. He noted the growing discourse following the Supreme Court’s judgment and expressed hope that a constitutional bench would offer an advisory opinion to clarify the issue. Kumar stressed the need for a resolution to prevent an apparent conflict between the judiciary and the executive, which could be detrimental to governance.
Former Additional Solicitor General (ASG) and Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra weighed in, emphasising that the reference aims to determine the extent to which the Supreme Court can direct Governors and the President in their decision-making. He raised fundamental questions about federalism and governance, asking whether constitutional authorities can withhold assent indefinitely and, in doing so, obstruct governance and deprive citizens of their legislative rights.
Sumit Gehlot of Fidelegal Advocates and Solicitors, an expert in constitutional law, explained that under Article 143, the President can seek the Supreme Court’s opinion on legal or factual issues of public importance. In State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu & Anr., the Supreme Court addressed the Tamil Nadu Government’s challenge regarding the Governor’s delay in approving state assembly bills, citing the absence of a specific time frame in Articles 200 and 201. To uphold justice and bridge legal gaps, the Court exercised Article 142 and directed the President and Governors to act promptly.
Gehlot underscored that the key concern is not whether the President can seek the Supreme Court’s opinion but rather the implications of the Court’s directive and whether Presidential intervention was warranted. He stated that Article 74 mandates the President to act on the advice of the Council of Ministers, limiting independent decision-making authority. Historically, the Supreme Court has issued directives, such as requiring timely decisions on mercy petitions.
Advocate Gehlot further highlighted that the Court’s April 8 directive setting a three-month timeline was based on recommendations from the Central Government, the Sarkaria and Punchhi Commissions, and the Ministry of Home Affairs’ Office Memorandum dated February 4, 2016. The memorandum strictly mandates adherence to the three-month limit for finalising state government bills. He argued that the President remains accountable and that indefinite delays in approving bills are unjustifiable.
Advocate Ashish Dixit, a prominent legal figure, stated that the President can seek the Supreme Court’s opinion on significant legal and factual matters. The Court may hold hearings if needed before giving its opinion, which is not binding as precedent nor legally obligatory for the President. In a 2002 reference, the Court ruled that it could either respond or respectfully decline.
Recent jurisprudence has made the President and the governor subject to limited judicial review in their official functions. The Supreme Court has already held that the President cannot be a party in judicial proceedings. The current reference sent by the President concerns constitutional issues stemming from the Court’s ruling in the Tamil Nadu governor’s case.
Senior Advocate Adish Aggarwala, former President of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), welcomed the Presidential reference under Article 143, which seeks an advisory opinion on the Supreme Court’s April 8 ruling. He noted that while Articles 200 and 201 do not specify fixed timelines, assent is generally expected within a reasonable period based on circumstances. However, Aggarwala cautioned against using Article 142 to impose binding deadlines on constitutional authorities, citing a 1996 ruling in which the Supreme Court stated that the application of Article 142 should remain flexible and undefined.
This story was featured in following publications. Click to read.
