Presidential Reference to SC on Timeline to Act on State Bills

Syllabus: GS2/Polity and Governance

Context

• President Droupadi Murmu sought the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion under Article 143 on whether the President and governors need to follow timelines to decide on state bills.

Background

• Recently, the Supreme Court verdict laid down a timeline for the President and governors to decide on state bills.
• Though, the Governor is not bound by any time limit to act on a Bill.
  • This creates a situation where the Governor can simply not act on a Bill indefinitely this is referred to as a “Pocket Veto”, although the term is not officially used in the Constitution. 
• The Supreme Court ruled that Governors cannot delay or withhold assent to Bills indefinitely once they are passed or re-passed by the state Assembly.
• The ruling set a timeline for the Governor to act on Bills:
  • One month for re-passed Bills.
  • Three months if the Bill is withheld contrary to Cabinet advice.
• It raises questions about the scope of judicial authority under Article 142, and whether the courts can enforce accountability on constitutional functionaries like Governors and the President.

What is Article 142?

• Article 142 of the Indian constitution is a provision that empowers the Supreme Court to pass any decree or order necessary for doing complete justice in any case or matter pending before it. 
  • It also makes such decree or order enforceable throughout the territory of India.
• The importance of Article 142 lies in the following aspects:
  • It enables the Supreme Court to exercise executive and legislative functions in certain situations, such as issuing guidelines, directions, or orders to the government or other authorities. 
  • It allows the Supreme Court to intervene in matters of public interest, human rights, constitutional values, or fundamental rights, and to protect them from any violation or infringement. 
  • It enhances the Supreme Court’s role as the guardian of the constitution and the final arbiter of the law. 
• Criticism: It may encroach upon the principle of separation of powers and the domain of the executive and the legislature, and may invite criticism of judicial overreach or activism. 

Article 143 – Power of President to consult Supreme Court

• Article 143(1): The President can refer any question of law or fact that is of public importance to the Supreme Court for its advisory opinion.
  • The Court may choose to answer or decline.
  • The opinion is not binding, but is highly respected.
• A similar power to make references was granted to the Federal Court of India under Section 213 of the Government of India Act, 1935.
• Article 145(3) requires any such reference to be heard by five judges, after which the SC returns the reference to the President with the majority opinion.
• Need for the Article: Under the Constitution, the President acts on the aid and advice of the Cabinet.
  • The advisory jurisdiction allows her the means to seek independent advice to act on certain constitutional matters. 
  • It is a power that the President has invoked on at least 15 occasions since 1950.

Conclusion

• In essence, this development is not merely a legal inquiry but a crucial test of India’s federal structure, with implications for the balance of power between the Centre and the States, judicial oversight, and constitutional morality.
• The outcome could redefine how delays in Bill assent are addressed and reaffirm the judiciary’s role in safeguarding democratic processes.

Source: TH