Presidential reference
President Droupadi Murmu has asked the Supreme Court for its opinion on certain legal issues using Article 143 of the Constitution.
This is known as a Presidential reference.
What is the historical context?
Article 143 has its roots in the British-era Government of India Act, 1935.
That law let the Governor-General ask the federal court for advice on important legal questions.
Canada has a similar system; its Supreme Court can give opinions when asked by the government.
The U.S. Supreme Court, however, refuses to give advisory opinions because of a strict separation of powers in its Constitution.
What are the provisions?
Article 143 allows the President to refer legal or factual questions of public importance to the Supreme Court.
The President acts based on the advice of the Union Cabinet.
A bench of at least five judges must hear such a reference, as per Article 145.
The Supreme Court's opinion is not legally binding but is generally respected and followed.
It also doesn't set a legal precedent for other cases.
What were past instances?
Since 1950, there have been about 15 Presidential references.
Key cases include:
Delhi Laws Act case (1951): Defined how Parliament can delegate lawmaking powers to the executive.
Kerala Education Bill (1958): Balanced Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles; clarified minority rights.
Berubari case (1960): Said a constitutional amendment is needed to cede Indian territory.
Keshav Singh case (1965): Interpreted legislative privileges.
Presidential poll case (1974): Elections can be held even with some vacant seats.
Special Courts Bill (1978): Court can decline vague references and avoid overstepping Parliament’s powers.
Third Judges case (1998): Set rules for the collegium system of judicial appointments.
The only time the Court refused to give its opinion was in 1993 on the Ram Janmabhoomi case.
What is the current reference?
This reference comes after a Supreme Court ruling that Governors and the President must act within a specific time on State Bills.
The Court said such actions can be reviewed by judges.
The government has asked 14 legal questions mainly about:
Whether courts can set time limits if the Constitution doesn’t.
Whether decisions by Governors/President before a Bill becomes law can be reviewed.
The powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142.
The issue reflects ongoing tensions between the Centre and Opposition-ruled States.
The Supreme Court had relied on a Home Ministry memo to set these timelines.
A clear ruling from the Court could clarify these important constitutional questions and help Indian democracy and federalism work more smoothly.
COMMENTS