Supreme Court Advisory Jurisdiction On Bills Timelines
The Supreme Court of India is set to hear a presidential reference under Article 143 on July 22, 2025. This follows its April 8 verdict that fixed a three-month deadline for the President to act on Bills reserved by Governors. The reference was made by President Droupadi Murmu seeking the Court’s advisory opinion on timelines for assent to state Bills. A Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice B R Gavai will examine the matter.
Supreme Court’s Advisory Jurisdiction Explained
Article 143 of the Constitution of India allows the President to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion on questions of law or fact. This advisory jurisdiction is non-binding and aims to clarify constitutional issues of public importance. The Court may choose whether to answer the reference. Such references must be heard by at least five judges. The power helps the President act independently on complex constitutional matters.
Historical Use and Limitations
Since 1950, Presidents have invoked Article 143 about 15 times. The Court has declined to answer references if they involve pending civil disputes or threaten secularism. For example, in 1993, the Court refused to comment on the Ram Janmabhoomi dispute due to ongoing litigation. The advisory opinion cannot overturn settled judicial decisions or act as an appellate review of Supreme Court rulings.
April 8 Ruling and Its Impact
The recent two-judge Bench ruling mandated the President to clear Bills reserved by Governors within three months. This came after the Tamil Nadu Governor withheld assent on 10 Bills. The Court allowed states to seek writs against the President if she delays assent. The ruling aimed to balance Centre-state relations and check Governors’ powers, often seen as extensions of the Centre.
Scope of the Presidential Reference
The reference includes 14 questions, mostly linked to the April 8 verdict but also broader issues. It asks if smaller Benches can hear constitutional cases or if larger Benches are required. It questions the use of Article 142, which grants the Court powers to do complete justice. It also seeks clarity on Centre-state disputes under Article 131, which grants the Supreme Court original jurisdiction in such matters.
Centre-State Relations and Political Context
The dispute reflects ongoing tensions between the Centre and Opposition-ruled states. Governors appointed by the Centre sometimes withhold assent to Bills, undermining elected governments. The Supreme Court’s intervention attempts to uphold democratic mandates while respecting constitutional roles. The ruling has sparked debate on parliamentary supremacy and judicial overreach, denoting the delicate balance of powers.
Judiciary and Parliamentary Supremacy Debate
Critics argue the judiciary may undermine Parliament and the people’s mandate by imposing timelines on the President. Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar has called for limited judicial review and stronger separation of powers. Such debates are longstanding, tracing back to early post-Independence conflicts over property rights and constitutional amendments. The Kesavananda Bharati case remains a landmark on limits to parliamentary power.
| Related | |
|---|---|
