What is Presidential Reference? What are its nature and objectives? Discuss the views of the Supreme Court on recent Presidential References.

📝Model Answer

Introduction

A Presidential Reference is the power vested in the President under Article 143(1) of the Constitution to refer to the Supreme Court any question of law or fact of public importance for its advisory opinion. The most recent reference (2025) concerned the powers and timelines of the Governor and President in granting assent to State Bills under Articles 200 and 201.

Key Details about Presidential Reference

1. Constitutional basis: Provided under Article 143, derived from Section 213 of the Government of India Act, 1935.
2. Advisory jurisdiction: It invokes the Supreme Court’s advisory (not adjudicatory) jurisdiction, distinct from its original and appellate roles.
3. Non-binding nature: The opinion rendered is advisory and not binding on the President, though it carries great persuasive and precedential weight.
4. Bench composition: References are heard by a Constitution Bench of at least five judges.
5. Discretion of the Court: Under Article 143(1), the Court may decline to answer; however, under Article 143(2), concerning pre-Constitution treaties and agreements, it is obliged to give its opinion.

Nature and Objectives of Presidential Reference

1. Constitutional safety valve: It allows the executive to seek authoritative clarity on complex constitutional questions before a crisis deepens, preventing legal uncertainty.
2. Advisory and consultative: Its character is consultative, designed to assist the executive rather than settle a dispute between parties.
3. Clarifying constitutional ambiguity: It helps interpret silent or ambiguous provisions where no clear precedent exists.
4. Preventive jurisprudence: It enables proactive resolution of potential disputes, avoiding prolonged litigation and institutional friction.
5. Strengthening separation of powers: It facilitates dialogue between the executive and judiciary while respecting each organ’s domain.
6. Promoting cooperative federalism: References on Centre-State matters help maintain constitutional balance, as seen in the Berubari (1960) and Third Judges (1998) references.

Views of the Supreme Court on the Recent Presidential Reference (November 20, 2025)

The reference arose after the State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025) judgment, where the Court had fixed timelines for assent and "deemed" ten Bills assented under Article 142. President Droupadi Murmu referred 14 questions, and the five-judge Bench led by CJI B.R. Gavai opined as follows:

1. Courts cannot prescribe or impose a timeline for the grant of assent by the Governor or the President, as Articles 200 and 201 deliberately contemplate elasticity.
2. The concept of "deemed assent" does not exist under the Constitution, since one constitutional authority cannot substitute the role and powers of another, and Article 142 cannot be invoked to create it.
3. Decisions of the Governor and President under Articles 200 and 201 are not justiciable until after a law comes into force, and courts cannot review the contents of a Bill at a pre-enactment stage.
4. At the same time, Governors do not have the power to indefinitely delay Bills passed by State assemblies; judicial review is limited to compelling the Governor to act in cases of prolonged, unexplained and indefinite inaction, to prevent a constitutional standstill.
5. The Court clarified that withholding assent is inextricably linked with the obligation to return the Bill to the legislature with comments, so a Governor cannot withhold assent simpliciter.
6. On maintainability, the Court held that an Article 143 reference may, in appropriate cases, revisit or even overrule a prior decision, rejecting the argument that the reference was an "appeal in disguise," while affirming that the decision to invoke Article 143 lies solely with the President.

Conclusion