Presidential Reference and Governor’s Role in Legislation: Supreme Court of India to Weigh In

Presidential Reference and Governor’s Role in Legislation: Supreme Court of India to Weigh In

Syllabus:

GS-2:

Judiciary, Indian Constitution, Constitutional Bodies, Role of Governor, Co-operative Federalism, Federalism, Centre-State Relations

Focus:

A recent Presidential Reference under Article 143 of the Indian Constitution seeks the Supreme Court of India’s advisory opinion on the powers of a Governor to withhold assent to a bill, especially after a two-judge bench curbed these powers. This Supreme Court news raises key constitutional questions on federalism limits and the extent of judicial authority.

Context and Constitutional Framework:

a. The Core Issue: Presidential Reference and Article 143

Article 143 of the Indian Constitution empowers the President to seek the Supreme Court opinion on significant constitutional issues of public importance.

The current reference aims to examine whether the Governor can indefinitely withhold assent to state legislation passed by the State legislature, or if there should be a provision for “deemed assent” after a certain period.

The Union Government wants the Court to revisit the verdict of a two-judge bench, which limits the Governor’s discretion in legislative matters.

Nature of Advisory Opinions

The Supreme Court’s advisory opinion is not binding on the President or any authority.

In In re Natural Resources Allocation (2012), the Court clarified that such references cannot overturn a final verdict.

Hence, even if a five-judge bench provides clarity, the earlier Supreme Court judgement retains finality.

Past Precedents and Judicial Interpretation:

2G Spectrum Case (2012)

Presidential Reference made after the SC quashed the 2G spectrum allocation process.

The Court clarified that auctions are not the only way to distribute resources, but upheld the core of the earlier verdict.

Demonstrated how legal positions can be subtly refined, not overturned, through advisory references.

Collegium System and 1998 Reference

In 1998, a Presidential Reference modified the collegium process laid down in Advocates-on-Record Case (1993).

The SC tweaked aspects of the system without scrapping it, showing the limited yet influential nature of such references.

Babri Masjid Dispute and Ismail Faruqui Case

The Supreme Court has previously refused to answer a Presidential Reference, highlighting its discretion.

The reference was dismissed as unnecessary and politically motivated, setting a precedent for judicial restraint.

Legal and Institutional Concerns:

Judicial Mandate to the President: A Constitutional Dilemma

The two-judge bench ruling allows the Court to issue mandamus to the President, directing assent to a bill.

This raises questions about the judicial power of President and undermines the President’s independent constitutional position.

The issue lies in balancing judicial authority with executive discretion in a federal democracy, touching on the principle of separation of powers.

The Need for a Larger Bench

Important constitutional matters, especially those involving federalism limits and interpretation of powers, deserve a five-judge or larger bench.

Scholars like Nick Robinson and Jyotika Randhawa stress the lack of clear rules on referring cases to larger benches.

Greater judicial diversity ensures better reasoning and robust decisions.

Lack of Bench Referral Guidelines

No standardized framework exists to determine when a case qualifies for larger bench referral, especially under Article 145(3).

The current situation presents an opportunity for the SC to establish institutional clarity.

Possible Approaches Before the Supreme Court:

Revisiting vs Refusing the Reference

The Court may decline to respond, citing finality of the previous judgment, or

It may offer a limited reinterpretation, as in past Supreme Court case laws, to resolve ambiguities in the Governor’s role.

Addressing Core Concerns Raised by the Two-Judge Bench

The apex court should weigh whether mandating the President’s assent is constitutionally sound.

A more acceptable approach may be to establish a timeline or procedural guidelines for the Governor’s assent without directly intervening in executive functions.

Restoring Constitutional Order

The issue reflects a breakdown of cooperative federalism, where Governors delay bills for partisan reasons.

The judiciary must ensure the Constitution is not undermined by inaction or politically motivated decisions.

Broader Implications:

Preserving Constitutional Balance

The Court must tread cautiously, ensuring judicial overreach does not replace executive overreach.

Upholding constitutional values involves both judicial courage and restraint.

A Time for Judicial Statesmanship

The SC’s opinion could shape future Centre-State relations, particularly regarding governors’ conduct.

A balanced, well-reasoned judgment can set enduring standards for legislative, executive, and judicial boundaries.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court of India faces a pivotal constitutional test in this case involving Article 143 of the Indian Constitution and the Governor’s powers. It must clarify the role of Governors without undermining democratic institutions or exceeding its jurisdiction. Upholding federalism, ensuring legislative integrity, and reinforcing constitutional accountability are central to this judicial challenge. The outcome will shape Centre-State dynamics and executive accountability within India’s federal structure.

The Court’s decision may necessitate a deeper examination of Article 200 and Article 201, which deal with the Governor’s assent to bills and reservation for the President’s consideration. This could lead to a broader discussion on constitutional amendments and the need for clearer timelines for assent in the legislative process, potentially introducing the concept of “deemed assent” after a specified period.

As the appellate court and guardian of the Supreme law of India, the Supreme Court’s judgement on this matter will be crucial. It will not only impact the specific case but also set precedents for future constitutional interpretation and the balance of power in India’s federal system.

The decision of President Droupadi Murmu, who is President of India, to invoke Article 143 of the Indian Constitution highlights the importance of this issue and the need for clarity on the judicial power of the President in such matters. The Supreme Court opinion, while not binding, will carry significant weight in shaping future governance and legislative processes across India’s states.

This case underscores the ongoing constitutional dialogue between various constitutional bodies and the need for a delicate balance in India’s democratic framework. It also emphasizes the importance of constitutional conventions and the role of judicial review in maintaining the integrity of the nation’s federal structure.

The Supreme Court on governor’s powers may also consider invoking Article 142 to ensure complete justice in this matter. The Court’s advisory jurisdiction under Article 143 and its power to pass any order necessary for doing complete justice under Article 142 could be crucial in addressing the complex issues at hand.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court today judgement on this matter could potentially set new precedents for judicial oversight in matters concerning the relationship between the Centre and States. The Court may need to strike a balance between respecting the President’s powers and ensuring that governors do not misuse their discretionary powers.

Lastly, this case presents an opportunity for the Supreme Court to provide clarity on the timelines for assent to bills passed by state legislatures. By doing so, the Court could address a long-standing issue in India’s federal structure and potentially prevent future conflicts between governors and state governments.

Source: TH

Mains Practice Question:

Discuss the constitutional limits of the Governor’s discretion in withholding assent to bills passed by the State legislature. In light of recent Presidential References under Article 143 of the Indian Constitution, how should the Supreme Court balance judicial interpretation with federal principles and institutional integrity? Suggest reforms to strengthen legislative and executive accountability in such cases.