Presidential Reference on Governors’ Role: Revisiting Constitutional Boundaries

— By Suryavanshi IAS

📌 “Constitutional authority is not a license for inaction. Deliberate silence from high offices raises questions on accountability in a democracy.”

🔍 THE CONTEXT:

On July 22, 2025, the Supreme Court issued notices to the Centre and all States on a Presidential Reference concerning whether Governors and the President can be judicially directed to act within time-bound limits on State legislation.

This unprecedented development stems from a Constitution Bench judgment dated April 8, where the Court held that delays by the Governor in assenting to Bills are unconstitutional.

❓ What is the Presidential Reference?

The Reference arises from 14 constitutional questions submitted by President Droupadi Murmu following the April 8 ruling in the Tamil Nadu vs Governor case. It seeks the Court’s advisory opinion on the legality of judicial timelines imposed on constitutional authorities (like the Governor and the President) in granting assent to State Bills.

📝 Key question: Can the courts constitutionally compel action by the Governor or President within a stipulated time?

📜 Constitutional Basis: Article 143(1)

Article 143(1) empowers the President to seek advisory opinion of the Supreme Court on questions of law or fact of public importance.
The Court may choose to respond or decline, based on its discretion.

💡 Notable precedent:
The Court refused to answer the 1993 Ayodhya Reference, citing the secular nature of the Constitution and ongoing litigation.

⚖️ Are Advisory Opinions Binding?

Under Article 143(1), the Court’s advisory opinion is not binding.
Article 141 makes only adjudicatory judgments binding.

🧾 Example: In St. Xavier’s College vs State of Gujarat (1974), the Supreme Court clarified that advisory opinions do not establish binding precedent.
Yet, in R.K. Garg (1981), the Court treated an advisory opinion as authoritative, showing occasional ambiguity.

🔍 For UPSC Mains: This demonstrates how judicial precedent vs persuasive authority must be interpreted within constitutional limits.

🧩 Can a Presidential Reference Overturn a Past Ruling?

NO.
Article 143 cannot be misused to override or review settled law.

In the Cauvery Water Disputes Reference, the Court held that advisory jurisdiction cannot substitute adjudicatory review.
The April 8 ruling remains binding law unless overturned via:
- Review Petition
- Curative Petition

🛠️ However, in certain past instances:

1998 Reference modified the collegium system, refining its operation without overruling the 1993 judgment.
In Natural Resources Allocation (2012), the Court clarified policy mechanisms post-2G spectrum judgment — but did not reverse its own earlier ruling.

📌 Thus, a Presidential Reference can clarify or restate, but not nullify binding judgments.

🧭 Implications for Governance and Federalism

✅ What April 8 Held:

Governors cannot sit indefinitely on Bills.
Judicial timelines for action are constitutionally valid to prevent “arbitrary inaction”.
Upholds legislative supremacy of elected State Assemblies.

❗ What the Presidential Reference Indicates:

Possible executive discomfort with enforceable timelines.
A debate on separation of powers: How far can courts direct constitutional heads?

🔍 For UPSC aspirants, this raises key governance questions:

Can constitutional silence be interpreted by courts?
Is judicial accountability enforceable upon constitutional authorities like Governors or President?

📚 UPSC Notes Section

📘 GS Paper II – Polity & Governance

Role of President and Governors under Article 200, 201
Doctrine of Separation of Powers
Federalism and Centre-State Relations
Article 143 – Presidential Reference

📘 GS Paper IV – Ethics & Integrity

Responsibility in public office
Conflict between legal obligations and constitutional morality

📝 Essay Topics

“Judicial Activism vs Constitutional Functionaries: Finding the Balance”
“In a federal democracy, delay is denial: The politics of assent”

🔚 Conclusion:

The Constitution does not favour silence where the public will is concerned.

The Supreme Court’s April 8 judgment laid down a landmark principle — that constitutional positions cannot be used as shields against responsibility. The Presidential Reference now offers an opportunity to refine and reassert the constitutional boundaries of power, not to retreat from them.

As future administrators and thinkers, UPSC aspirants must deeply engage with such developments that lie at the heart of constitutional governance.

📌 Follow Suryavanshi IAS for in-depth, exam-ready insights on law, polity, and governance.

Suryavanshi IAS

Thursday, July 24, 2025