Syllabus: Structure, organization and functioning of the Executive and the Judiciary
Context
- A five-judge Bench, answering India’s 16th Presidential Reference, held that judiciary cannot impose rigid timelines on the President or Governors for disposing State Bills.
- Court rejected the idea of “deemed consent”, calling it unconstitutional and violative of separation of powers.
Key Judicial Findings
- Imposing uniform timelines is “one-size-fits-all” and inconsistent with constitutional design.
- Deemed assent would usurp constitutional functions of the President and Governor.
- Yet, they cannot sit indefinitely on Bills through “prolonged or evasive inaction”.
- Court emphasised that Governors must follow a dialogic process with State Legislatures and cannot simply stall Bills.
- Court upheld Governor’s three options under Article 200:
- Grant assent,
- Reserve for President,
- Return the Bill (non-Money Bills), with reasons.
Scope of Judicial Review
- Judiciary cannot review the merits of decisions under Articles 200 or 201.
- However, in cases of unexplained, indefinite delay, court may issue a limited mandamus directing the Governor to act within a “reasonable period”.
- Governor enjoys absolute personal immunity from court proceedings under Article 361.
Position on April 2025 Judgment
- The Reference Bench disagreed with the earlier ruling fixing a three-month timeline, calling it unsuitable for all situations.
- Clarified that the President is not bound to seek Supreme Court’s opinion for every reserved Bill; consultation under Article 143 remains discretionary.
Significance
- Reaffirms constitutional boundaries among Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary.
- Prevents excessive judicial intrusion into executive legislative procedure.
- Reinforces federal principles, ensuring Governors do not undermine elected State governments through inaction.
Supreme Court’s Advisory Jurisdiction (Article 143)
- Article 143(1) empowers the President to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion on important legal or factual questions.
- This advisory mechanism continues a feature from the Government of India Act, 1935.
- It has been invoked at least 14 times since Independence.
- The Court must restrict itself to the precise questions framed in the Presidential Reference.
- Debates in the Constituent Assembly raised concerns of political misuse, yet the provision was retained to resolve constitutional impasses.
- Article 145(3) requires that References be heard by a Constitution Bench of minimum five judges.
- Judicial Position
- Although Article 143 authorises Presidential consultation, the Court is not obligated to answer every Reference.
- In the Special Courts Bill case (1978), the term “may” was interpreted to confer discretion on the Court.
- When declining, the Court must record reasons for refusal.
- In Ismail Faruqui (1994), the Court held that References needing expert evidence or involving political issues may be declined.
- The Court refused the 1993 Ayodhya Reference due to an ongoing civil suit and constitutional concerns.
- In 1982, the Court did not answer a Reference on migrant resettlement in J&K because the law had already been enacted.
- These instances highlight a cautious approach to protect judicial integrity and avoid political entanglement.
- Although Article 143 authorises Presidential consultation, the Court is not obligated to answer every Reference.