Presidential reference: Why SC rejected objections by Opposition states

The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected preliminary objections raised by several Opposition-ruled states against the maintainability of the Presidential Reference on timelines for granting assent to Bills, holding that the questions posed go to the core of India’s constitutional framework.

A five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai said the court’s advisory jurisdiction under Article 143 carries an institutional responsibility to interpret the Constitution “for the benefit of the Republic and its constituents”. The bench, also comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha and A.S. Chandurkar, unanimously held that the reference could not be declined.

“The questions referred by the President pertain to the very core and foundational modalities of our constitutional machinery that ensure the continuation of our republican democracy,” the bench observed.

It stressed that judicial propriety required answering the reference, adding that the court was “empowered and entrusted” under Article 143 to offer authoritative clarity.

States including Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Kerala, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Telangana and Meghalaya had argued that the reference should be returned unanswered, asserting that the Supreme Court’s 8 April verdict had already dealt with the issues.

The bench disagreed, noting that the April judgment had created areas of “doubt or confusion” on the functions of governors and the President under Articles 200 and 201.

The court said the allegation that the non-disclosure of the April judgment indicated mala fides on the part of the President was “a leap in logic” and unworthy of being entertained. It pointed out that of the 15 previous Presidential References, only one — in 1993 — was returned without answers.

Accepting submissions from the Centre and NDA-ruled states such as Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Odisha, the bench said the present matter was a “functional reference”, distinct from earlier ones, because it touched upon the day-to-day constitutional mechanics of legislative assent.

The court noted that several conclusions of the April 8 judgment appeared to be at variance with earlier decisions, and an authoritative clarification was essential to prevent disruption in constitutional functioning. “The law on the functions of the Governor and the President cannot be left in a state of confusion,” the bench said.