When the Constitution Speaks, Why Ask Again?

On May 13, 2025, the President of India invoked Article 143(1) of the Constitution to refer fourteen questions to the Supreme Court.

- Parth Gautam and Pragati Solanki

A Presidential Reference is not uncommon; fourteen such references have occurred before, but what makes this one deeply unsettling is not its form, but its intent. It follows the Supreme Court's landmark decision in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu [2025 INSC 481], hailed as a historic affirmation of constitutional governance. Instead of respecting this well-considered verdict, the executive seems keen to revisit settled law through the backdoor of advisory jurisdiction. Indeed, one is tempted to ask whether the fifteenth question should have been: "Are we still required to abide by the Constitution?"

THE NATURE AND LIMITS OF ARTICLE 143

Article 143(1) empowers the President to seek the advisory opinion of the Supreme Court on matters of public importance. But the Constitution clearly states that the Court may decline to answer such references. It is not mandatory, nor is the advisory opinion binding on the President. In fact, it does not operate as a judicial pronouncement. However, it is binding on all other courts, thereby making it a powerful constitutional tool that must be wielded with restraint and seriousness. The problem arises when this tool is used not to illuminate the law but to cloud it. When the questions raised are neither unresolved nor ambiguous, but plainly answered by constitutional provisions, Constituent Assembly Debates, and landmark judgments.

AN ATTEMPT TO UNDERMINE A LANDMARK JUDGMENT

The reference is clearly an attempt to sidestep the Supreme Court's verdict in the Tamil Nadu case, which clarified that assent to Bills is not a discretionary power of the Governor but a constitutional duty. The reference creates an artificial controversy over well-settled issues, suggesting that the executive may be uncomfortable with the judiciary's reaffirmation of basic constitutional principles.

But the judiciary has spoken. Repeatedly and clearly.