Supreme Court on President’s Role: Why It Answered the Advisory Reference

The Supreme Court has released detailed reasoning explaining why it chose to answer the Presidential Reference under Article 143 regarding the role of Governors and the President in granting assent to state legislation. A five-judge Constitution Bench had earlier clarified that neither the President nor Governors are bound by judicially prescribed timelines for deciding on bills forwarded by state governments.
Source: The Indian Express

The court emphasised that although elected governments expect timely action, the Constitution does not set explicit deadlines for assenting to, withholding, or returning a bill. Any attempt by the judiciary to impose such timeframes would risk encroaching on the domain of the executive, thereby disturbing the separation of powers, a foundational principle of India’s constitutional architecture.

Why the Court Chose to Answer the Reference

The Bench underscored that it was necessary to respond to the President’s query in order to clarify constitutional ambiguities, especially given ongoing tensions between state governments and Governors over delayed assent. The court noted that Article 143 empowers it to issue advisory opinions on questions of public importance, and declining to answer could lead to institutional uncertainty.

By offering its interpretation, the court sought to reinforce the functioning of cooperative federalism while ensuring that constitutional offices maintain mutual respect. The decision also reflects the judiciary’s commitment to supporting smooth governance without overstepping its remit.

Broader Constitutional Implications

• Advisory Role (Art. 143): The judgment reaffirms that the Supreme Court’s advisory jurisdiction is vital for resolving complex constitutional disputes without adversarial litigation.
• Federal Balance: It highlights the delicate equilibrium between state autonomy and the constitutional authority of Governors and the President.
• Institutional Respect: The court’s restraint demonstrates deference to constitutional roles while providing interpretative guidance.

Overall, the ruling seeks to reduce friction between constitutional authorities and ensure clarity in the bill-assent process without judicial overreach.