 |
|
President Droupadi Murmu's reference to the Supreme Court under Article 143 of the Constitution marks a significant event in Indian constitutional law. The questions posed, focusing on the powers of the Governor and the President under Articles 200 and 201, highlight the complexities and potential ambiguities inherent in the constitutional framework governing the assent of Bills. This reference comes in the wake of the Supreme Court's judgment in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025), which laid down timelines for constitutional authorities to act on Bills. The timing suggests that the President seeks clarification on the extent to which judicial pronouncements can circumscribe the discretionary powers of these high constitutional offices. The 14 questions themselves delve into fundamental aspects of the relationship between the executive and the legislature, the justiciability of executive actions, and the scope of judicial review in matters concerning constitutional powers. It is crucial to analyze these questions in detail to understand the underlying legal and constitutional issues at stake. The first few questions center on the Governor's options when a Bill is presented to him under Article 200. The Constitution provides the Governor with three options: to give assent to the Bill, to withhold assent, or to reserve the Bill for the consideration of the President. The reference seeks clarity on whether the Governor is bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers while exercising these options, and whether the Governor's exercise of constitutional discretion is justiciable. These questions are particularly pertinent in the context of recent controversies surrounding the role of Governors in various states, where disputes have arisen between the Governor and the state government over the assent to Bills. The justiciability of the Governor's actions is a contentious issue, as Article 361 provides immunity to the Governor from legal proceedings for the exercise of his powers and duties. However, the Supreme Court has consistently held that this immunity is not absolute and that the Governor's actions are subject to judicial review if they are found to be mala fide or unconstitutional. The questions also address the issue of timelines for the exercise of powers by the Governor and the President. In the absence of constitutionally prescribed time limits, the Supreme Court's judgment in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025) sought to impose timelines for constitutional authorities to act on Bills. The reference questions whether such timelines can be imposed through judicial orders, given the separation of powers principle and the constitutional mandate of the executive to exercise its powers independently. The questions relating to the President's powers under Article 201 are analogous to those concerning the Governor's powers under Article 200. However, they also raise additional issues, such as whether the President is required to seek the advice of the Supreme Court under Article 143 when the Governor reserves a Bill for the President's assent. This question goes to the heart of the President's role as the guardian of the Constitution and the protector of the interests of the Union. The reference also seeks clarity on whether the decisions of the Governor and the President are justiciable at a stage anterior to the law coming into force. This raises the question of whether courts can undertake judicial adjudication over the contents of a Bill before it becomes law. The principle of separation of powers suggests that the judiciary should not interfere with the legislative process until a law has been enacted. However, there may be exceptional circumstances where judicial intervention is warranted, such as where a Bill is manifestly unconstitutional or violates fundamental rights. The remaining questions address a range of issues, including the scope of the Supreme Court's powers under Article 142, the validity of a law made by the State legislature without the assent of the Governor, and the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to resolve disputes between the Union Government and the State Governments. These questions are all crucial for understanding the constitutional framework governing the relationship between the Union and the States, and the role of the judiciary in interpreting and enforcing the Constitution.
The Presidential Reference, by its very nature, is a significant tool available to the President of India to seek the Supreme Court's advisory opinion on matters of public importance and questions of law that have arisen or are likely to arise. Article 143 of the Constitution empowers the President to consult the Supreme Court, which then expresses its opinion. While the Supreme Court's opinion is advisory and not binding on the President, it carries significant weight and serves as a valuable guide for the executive branch. The fact that President Murmu has invoked this power highlights the complexity and sensitivity of the issues surrounding the powers of the Governor and the President in relation to the assent of Bills. It underscores the need for a clear and authoritative interpretation of the constitutional provisions to avoid potential conflicts between the Union and the States and to ensure the smooth functioning of the legislative process. The questions raised in the reference touch upon the very core of the constitutional balance of power between the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary. They challenge the existing understanding of the scope of executive discretion, the limits of judicial review, and the role of the President as the protector of the Constitution. The Supreme Court's response to these questions will have far-reaching implications for the future of Indian constitutional law and governance. The previous Presidential Reference in 2016 provides some context for understanding the significance of the current reference. While the subject matter of the earlier reference was different, it similarly involved complex questions of law and constitutional interpretation. The Supreme Court's opinion in that case helped to clarify the legal position on the issues raised and to provide guidance to the executive branch. The present reference is likely to have a similar effect, by clarifying the constitutional position on the powers of the Governor and the President in relation to the assent of Bills. It is important to note that the Presidential Reference is not a substitute for the regular judicial process. It is a special mechanism that is available to the President in exceptional circumstances where there is a need for urgent clarification of the law. The questions raised in the reference are not hypothetical or abstract; they are based on real-world problems and disputes that have arisen in the context of the relationship between the Union and the States. The Supreme Court's opinion will therefore have a direct impact on the way in which these problems and disputes are resolved in the future.
The Supreme Court's approach to the Presidential Reference will be crucial in shaping the future of constitutional interpretation in India. The Court will need to strike a delicate balance between upholding the separation of powers principle and ensuring that the executive branch acts in accordance with the Constitution. It will also need to consider the practical implications of its opinion for the smooth functioning of the government and the protection of the rights of citizens. The Court's opinion is likely to be based on a careful analysis of the relevant constitutional provisions, judicial precedents, and the principles of constitutional law. It will also take into account the views of various stakeholders, including the Union Government, the State Governments, and legal experts. The Court's opinion will be closely scrutinized by all concerned, and it is likely to generate significant debate and discussion. The outcome of the Presidential Reference will have a lasting impact on the Indian political system and the relationship between the Union and the States. It will also serve as a precedent for future cases involving similar issues of constitutional law. The importance of this case cannot be overstated, as it goes to the heart of the constitutional balance of power and the rule of law in India. The reference itself highlights a growing tension within the Indian constitutional framework. On one hand, there's the principle of executive independence, enshrined in Articles 200 and 201, which grants the Governor and President discretionary powers in assenting to Bills. On the other hand, there's the judiciary's role in ensuring constitutional propriety and preventing arbitrary or mala fide actions by these high offices. The Supreme Court’s prior ruling in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025) suggests a judicial willingness to impose some level of constraint on executive inaction. President Murmu's reference can be seen as a pushback against this trend, seeking to reaffirm the broad scope of executive discretion within the constitutional framework. This creates a complex legal and political landscape, where the judiciary and the executive are vying for influence in shaping the interpretation and application of the Constitution. The ultimate resolution of this matter will likely require a nuanced approach, balancing the need for executive accountability with the imperative of preserving the independence and integrity of the executive branch. Furthermore, the reference touches upon the evolving understanding of the separation of powers doctrine in the Indian context. While the Constitution clearly delineates the functions of the legislature, executive, and judiciary, there is also a recognition of the need for checks and balances to prevent abuse of power. The Presidential Reference provides an opportunity for the Supreme Court to further clarify the contours of this doctrine and to define the permissible limits of judicial intervention in executive matters. The questions raised in the reference are not merely technical legal issues; they are fundamental questions about the nature of Indian democracy and the relationship between the state and its citizens. The Supreme Court's opinion will therefore have a profound impact on the future of Indian governance and the protection of constitutional rights.