CONTEXT

• President Droupadi Murmu has invoked Article 143 of the Constitution.
• A reference was made to the Supreme Court seeking its opinion on certain constitutional questions.
• This comes in the backdrop of a Supreme Court judgment prescribing timelines for action on State Bills by Governors and the President.

WHAT IS A PRESIDENTIAL REFERENCE?

• It is a constitutional mechanism under Article 143.
• Enables the President of India to seek the opinion of the Supreme Court on questions of law or fact of public importance.
• This is done based on the advice of the Union Council of Ministers.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

• Inspired by Section 213 of the Government of India Act, 1935.
• The Governor-General could refer legal questions to the Federal Court.
• Adopted in the Indian Constitution as Article 143.

INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON

• Canada: Supreme Court can give advisory opinions on legal issues referred by federal/provincial governments.
• USA: Advisory opinions are not allowed as they violate the doctrine of separation of powers.

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

Article 143:

• Permits the President to refer questions of law or fact of public importance.
• The Supreme Court may give its opinion after a hearing.
• The opinion is:
  • Not binding on the President.
  • Not precedent for future cases.
  • Holds strong persuasive value.

Article 145:

• Requires such references to be heard by a Bench of at least five judges.

PAST PRESIDENTIAL REFERENCES (SELECT CASES)

1. Delhi Laws Act (1951)
   • Clarified the concept of delegated legislation.
2. Kerala Education Bill (1958)
   • Explained harmony between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles.
3. Berubari Union Case (1960)
   • Stated constitutional amendment is needed for ceding Indian territory.
4. Keshav Singh Case (1965)
   • Interpreted legislative privileges.
5. Presidential Election Case (1974)
   • Elections can be held even with vacant State Assemblies.
6. Special Courts Bill (1978)
   • Court may decline vague or non-specific
   • Emphasized judicial restraint.
7. Third Judges Case (1998)
   • Laid down the collegium system for judicial appointments.
8. Ram Janmabhoomi Case (1993)
   • Only instance where the Court refused to give an opinion.

CURRENT REFERENCE (2024)

Origin:

• Follows a Supreme Court ruling that set timelines for the President/Governors to act on State legislation.
• The ruling held that such actions are subject to judicial review.

Key Legal Issues Raised:

• Can judicial timelines be imposed when the Constitution is silent?
• Are the actions of the President/Governors justiciable before a Bill becomes law?
• What are the limits of Supreme Court powers under Article 142?

Articles Involved:

• Article 200: Governor’s assent to Bills.
• Article 201: President’s power over State Bills.
• Article 142: Supreme Court’s plenary powers.

LEGAL & POLITICAL SIGNIFICANCE

• Reveals tensions between the Union Government and Opposition-ruled States.
• Important for the functioning of cooperative federalism.
• Raises questions on the balance of power between the Executive and Judiciary.

IS THE SUPREME COURT BOUND TO ANSWER?

• No, the Court is not obligated to answer.
• So far, it has declined only once (Ram Janmabhoomi case).
• However, the Court’s opinion is highly respected and often followed.

CONCLUSION

• The advisory jurisdiction under Article 143 plays a crucial role in constitutional interpretation.
• The current reference may clarify grey areas in Centre-State legislative relations and the scope of judicial oversight.
• An authoritative opinion could strengthen constitutional governance and promote clarity and balance in India’s federal structure.