Supreme Court opinion on Presidential reference deplorable, shocking: CPI(M)

CPI(M) general-secretary M.A. Baby on Thursday sharply criticised the Supreme Court’s opinion on the Presidential reference concerning timelines for granting assent to Bills, calling the court’s stance “deplorable and shocking”.

His remarks came shortly after a five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai held that no judicially enforceable deadline can be imposed on the President or state governors to decide on Bills sent to them by state legislatures.

President Droupadi Murmu had invoked Article 143(1) — a rarely used provision that allows the President to seek the court’s advisory opinion — posing 14 questions on the implications of the Supreme Court’s 8 April verdict. That ruling had directed constitutional authorities to decide on Bills within three months, sparking objections from several states and prompting the reference.

After deliberations, the Bench unanimously opined that the judiciary cannot mandate fixed timelines for the President or governors.

It further held that the court cannot direct “deemed assent” for delayed Bills, saying such an intervention would amount to taking over the constitutional role of another authority.

At the same time, the Bench clarified that governors do not have the power to indefinitely hold Bills and must choose one of three constitutionally permitted options: granting assent, referring the Bill to the President, or returning it for reconsideration under Article 200.

Criticising this position, Baby said the court should not “hesitate to play a meaningful role” in maintaining checks and balances between the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary. In a post on X, he argued that the court’s response has effectively allowed constitutional authorities to avoid timelines without offering a clear alternative.

He noted that while the court refused to impose strict deadlines, it simultaneously said a “limited power of judicial review” could be used to direct a governor to decide a Bill “in a time-bound manner”. Baby questioned the ambiguity in that formulation: “Now, who will decide what is a time-bound manner? Judiciary should not absolve itself of its constitutional responsibility.”

The CPI(M) leader said the court’s opinion leaves state governments vulnerable to delays by governors, a recurring flashpoint in several Opposition-ruled states.

The Supreme Court’s advisory opinion, though not binding, carries significant weight and is expected to shape future debates over federal functioning and gubernatorial powers.

With PTI inputs