A FEDERAL DILEMMA

Ultimately, the present episode is a crucial reminder that India's constitutional design depends not merely on the written word, but on a shared respect for institutional roles

- Bruhaspati Samal

In a rare development, President Droupadi Murmu on 13 May, invoked Article 143(1) of the Constitution, seeking the Supreme Court's advisory opinion on a matter that touches the heart of federal governance: whether timelines can be imposed by judicial authority on the President and Governors while exercising their discretion over state legislation.

The move follows the SC's landmark verdict on 8 April, 2025, in which it laid down, for the first time, a three-month deadline for the President to decide on any bill reserved for her consideration by a Governor. The verdict arose from a case filed by Tamil Nadu government, alleging delays by the Governor in assenting to state bills, and has since ignited a fierce debate over the separation of powers between the Executive and Judiciary.

Under Article 143(1), the President may refer to the SC any question of law or fact that is deemed to be of such public importance that obtaining the Court's opinion becomes expedient. Though the Court's opinion in such matters is not binding, it carries great moral and legal weight, especially since such references are heard by a five-judge Constitution Bench. The President's current reference is only the thirteenth in Indian constitutional history and contains fourteen significant questions regarding the interpretation of Articles 200 and 201—both of which relate to how Governors and the President deal with bills passed by state legislatures.