President Murmu seeks advisory opinion from Supreme Court

President Droupadi Murmu’s invocation of the Supreme Court’s advisory jurisdiction under Article 143(1) marks a significant constitutional development, particularly in the context of federal relations and the functioning of parliamentary democracy in India.

Background and Context

• On April 8, the Supreme Court fixed a three-month deadline for the President and governor to act on state Bills that are reserved for her consideration by Governors.
• This judgment aimed to prevent indefinite delays in granting or withholding assent to legislation, which had increasingly become a political flashpoint.
• Five weeks later, on May 13, President Murmu referred 14 legal questions to the Supreme Court for its advisory opinion on the constitutional validity and scope of this judgment.

Legal Basis for the Reference

• Article 143(1) empowers the President to seek the opinion of the Supreme Court on questions of law or fact that have arisen or are likely to arise and are of public importance.
  • The SC may choose to answer the reference; it is not mandatory.
• This process is part of the advisory jurisdiction, which has been invoked at least 15 times since 1950.
• The advice is not binding, but carries great constitutional and persuasive weight.

Constitutional Articles Under Scrutiny

The reference touches upon multiple constitutional provisions, making it one of the most comprehensive references in recent history:

• Article 200: Governor’s powers to assent, withhold assent, or reserve state bills.
• Article 201: Presidential consideration of bills reserved by Governors.
• Article 142: Supreme Court’s power to ensure complete justice.
• Article 361: Immunity of the President and Governors from court scrutiny for official acts.
• Article 145(3): Requires a Constitution Bench (minimum five judges) to deal with substantial questions of law.
• Article 131: Original jurisdiction in disputes between the Centre and States or inter-State disputes.

Significance of the Reference

• The questions aim to clarify the constitutional relationship between the Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary—especially in the federal context.
• It raises concerns over judicial overreach: Can the judiciary impose timelines on constitutional functionaries like the President or Governors, as timeline is not mentioned in the Constitution?
• It also highlights the need to balance federal autonomy with constitutional accountability.
• The case could define the limits of gubernatorial discretion and Presidential consideration over state laws—a long-standing area of tension.

Precedent and Judicial Discretion

• In the past, the Supreme Court has declined to answer at least two Presidential references, emphasizing its discretion.
• Its opinion in this case, while non-binding, will likely set a benchmark for how future legislative delays are handled.