Photo of author

By Gurmail Singh

On May 13, 2025, President Droupadi Murmu invoked Article 143(1) of the Indian Constitution to send a Presidential Reference to the Supreme Court, posing 14 questions in response to the court’s April 8, 2025, verdict.

President Draupadi Murmu

This verdict, stemming from the Tamil Nadu Bills case, set timelines for Governors and the President to act on state bills, including a three-month deadline for the President to decide on bills reserved by Governors under Article 201.

The reference challenges the constitutional validity of these judicially imposed timelines, as the Constitution does not prescribe specific timeframes for such actions.

President Draupadi Murmu Asked 14 Questions To Supreme Court

The 14 questions broadly seek clarity on:

Timelines for Decision-Making: Can the Supreme Court impose timelines on Governors and the President for acting on state bills under Articles 200 and 201 when no constitutional timeframe exists? For instance, President Murmu questioned how the court could mandate a three-month deadline for her decisions on bills reserved by Governors.

Judicial Overreach: Do the Supreme Court’s powers under Article 142 (to do “complete justice”) allow it to issue directions that override or conflict with constitutional provisions or the discretionary powers of Governors and the President?

Justiciability: Are the actions of Governors and the President, such as granting, withholding, or reserving assent to bills, subject to judicial review before a bill becomes law? The reference notes conflicting Supreme Court judgments on whether presidential assent under Article 201 is justiciable.

Governor’s Powers: What are the constitutional options available to Governors under Article 200 (e.g., assent, withhold assent, or reserve for the President)? Is a Governor bound by the Council of Ministers’ advice, and is their discretionary power justiciable?

President’s Role: Is the President required to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion under Article 143 when a Governor reserves a bill for her consideration? The reference questions whether such a consultation is mandatory.

Federal Balance: Can courts resolve disputes between the Union and State governments outside Article 131 (which governs suits between governments)? This touches on federalism and the separation of powers.

Judicial Procedure: Does Article 145(3) mandate that substantial constitutional questions, like those in this case, be referred to a five-judge bench? The reference raises concerns about whether the two-judge bench in the Tamil Nadu case followed proper procedure.

Pocket Veto: The reference indirectly addresses the “pocket veto” (delaying assent indefinitely), questioning whether judicial timelines infringe on the constitutional discretion of Governors and the President.

The reference has sparked debate, with some, like Tamil Nadu CM MK Stalin, criticizing it as an attempt to undermine state autonomy, while others see it as a necessary check on judicial overreach. Senior advocate Siddharth Luthra noted that the reference aims to define the extent to which the Supreme Court can direct Governors and the President, potentially reshaping the basic structure doctrine.

This move, made a day before Chief Justice BR Gavai took office on May 14, 2025, underscores tensions between the executive and judiciary, raising critical questions about constitutional boundaries, federalism, and the separation of powers.

The Supreme Court’s advisory opinion, though not binding, will likely have significant implications for India’s legislative and constitutional framework.

Article 142 of the Indian Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to pass any decree or order necessary to do “complete justice” in any case or matter pending before it.

It is a unique provision that grants the Supreme Court wide discretionary powers to ensure justice is served, even when existing laws or statutes may not provide a clear remedy.

Key Features of Article 142:

Scope of Power:Article 142(1) states: “The Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. “This allows the court to go beyond the strict letter of the law to achieve equitable outcomes, filling gaps where the law is silent or inadequate.

Enforceability: Orders or decrees passed under Article 142 are enforceable throughout India, as per the manner prescribed by law or by Parliament. Until such laws are made, the President may prescribe the conditions for their enforcement.

Flexibility: The provision gives the Supreme Court extraordinary flexibility to tailor remedies to the specific needs of a case, ensuring justice is not defeated by technicalities or legal lacunae.It is often invoked in cases involving fundamental rights, public interest litigation (PIL), or complex constitutional matters.

NATIONAL NEWS 2025, ‘Supreme Court Breaching Its Boundaries, BJP

Examples of Use:

Landmark Cases:Babri Masjid Case (1994): The Supreme Court used Article 142 to transfer cases related to the Ayodhya dispute to itself and issue interim orders to maintain peace.

Coal Block Allocation Case (2014): The court canceled illegal coal block allocations and imposed fines, invoking Article 142 to address systemic corruption.

Bhopal Gas Tragedy Case (1989): The court approved a settlement between Union Carbide and the government, using Article 142 to ensure victims received compensation despite legal complexities.

Creative Remedies:The court has used Article 142 to issue guidelines (e.g., Vishaka Guidelines on workplace sexual harassment in 1997), dissolve marriages in irretrievable breakdown cases, or order environmental cleanups in PILs.

Follow US ON Facbook

Leave a Comment