Experts weigh in on Prez's move

The Supreme Court's April 8 judgment directing the President and Governors to act within a time-bound framework on bills passed by state legislatures has sparked an extraordinary constitutional moment.

- Ayesha Arvind

In a rare invocation of Article 143(1) of the Constitution, President Droupadi Murmu has sought the Court's advisory opinion on whether it is constitutionally permissible for the judiciary to prescribe such timelines.

The reference, made following advice of the council of ministers, questions whether the President's discretion under Article 201 is justiciable in the absence of explicit constitutional timelines.

The development has led to a flurry of reactions from constitutional experts, many of whom view the move as legally fraught and politically charged.

Justice PN Prakash, former judge of the Madras high court, said, "judgments exist which make it clear that a presidential reference cannot be used to challenge the correctness of a judgment already delivered." He added that many of the questions raised in the reference, including the maintainability of timelines and the propriety of a two-judge bench deciding such a significant matter, had already been argued before the Supreme Court (SC).

"This is not the President acting suo motu. She acts on the advice of the Council of Ministers," he noted, underlining political significance of the move.

Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan observed that while presidential references are not uncommon, the context of this one is unprecedented.