Supreme Court’s Advisory Opinion on the 16th Presidential Reference
Context
On November 20, 2025, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court delivered its advisory opinion on the 16th Presidential Reference made under Article 143. The Reference was initiated after President Droupadi Murmu sought clarification on constitutional issues arising from the Supreme Court’s April 2025 judgment related to delays by the Tamil Nadu Governor in acting on re-passed State Bills. The matter raised complex questions concerning constitutional architecture, executive discretion, judicial oversight, separation of powers, and the functioning of key constitutional authorities under Articles 200 and 201.
What is a Presidential Reference?
Constitutional Provision
Article 143 empowers the President to seek the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion on questions of law or fact of public importance. This provision forms a crucial part of India’s constitutional architecture and institutional checks and balances.
Article 143(1)
The President may refer any significant legal or factual question.
The Supreme Court may choose to tender or decline the opinion.
Example: The Court declined the Ram Janmabhoomi reference in 1993, demonstrating adjudicatory restraint.
Article 143(2)
Covers disputes relating to pre-Constitution treaties or agreements.
In such cases, the Court must give its opinion.
Nature of the Advice
The opinion under Article 143 is advisory and not binding.
The President retains constitutional discretion to accept or reject it, maintaining institutional equilibrium.
Bench Requirement
Under Article 145(3), such references must be heard by at least five judges.
Historical Basis
Derived from the Government of India Act, 1935, which enabled the Governor-General to consult the Federal Court.
International Practices
Canada recognises advisory opinions by its Supreme Court.
The US Supreme Court avoids advisory opinions to preserve a strict separation of powers.
Past Instances
About 15 Presidential References have been made so far.
What Was the Recent Presidential Reference About?
Trigger
The President submitted 14 questions following the Supreme Court’s April 2025 judgment concerning delays by the Tamil Nadu Governor.
April 2025 Judgment
The Court held that Governor R. N. Ravi’s prolonged inaction on ten re-passed Bills was unconstitutional.
For the first time, the Court introduced judicially enforceable timelines for constitutional authorities acting on State legislation.
Core Issue
The Reference sought clarity on whether courts can direct constitutional authorities such as the President or Governors on the manner and timing of their duties under Articles 200 and 201.
This directly concerns constitutional silence, executive discretion, and the doctrine of separation of powers.
Key Observations and Advice of the Supreme Court
Not Bound by Judicial Timelines
The Court ruled that Governors and the President are not bound by judicially imposed timelines in the absence of constitutional or statutory prescriptions.
A uniform timeline undermines institutional balance and ignores the varied complexity of legislation.
Nature and Complexity of Bills
Bills differ in constitutional and policy implications. Imposing a one-size-fits-all timeline disregards legislative competence and the need for reasoned constitutional scrutiny.
President’s Discretion
The President is not required to consult the Supreme Court every time a Bill is reserved by a Governor.
Seeking advice under Article 143 remains a matter of constitutional discretion.
Limits on Judicial Review
Courts cannot examine the merits or contents of a Bill before it becomes law.
Legislative will becomes operative only after receiving assent, reflecting constitutional morality and democratic accountability.
Doctrine of Separation of Powers
Judicial intervention in executive functions of the Governor or President violates the basic structure and disrupts institutional comity.
No Prolonged Inaction
Constitutional authorities cannot indefinitely delay decisions on State Bills.
Such inaction defeats cooperative federalism and obstructs the will of elected legislatures.
Scope of Article 200
A Governor has three options:
To grant assent,
Reserve the Bill for the President,
Return a non-Money Bill with observations.
The Governor cannot indefinitely stall a Bill without returning it with reasons, as this distorts dialogic governance.
Federalism Concerns
Unexplained withholding of assent undermines the federal balance and diminishes State autonomy within the quasi-federal structure.
Governor’s Discretion
The Governor is not bound by ministerial advice under Article 200.
He exercises independent constitutional judgment within prescribed limits.
Judicial Directions (Mandamus)
In exceptional cases of prolonged and unjustified delay, courts may issue a limited mandamus directing authorities to act within a reasonable timeframe.
Immunity Under Article 361
Governors enjoy absolute personal immunity.
Judicial review of inaction does not translate into personal legal proceedings.
Why the Supreme Court Answered the Reference
Constitutional Duty
The Court stressed its responsibility to uphold constitutional interpretation and maintain institutional harmony.
Constitutional Dialogue
Article 143 promotes dialogue between the Executive and Judiciary, reinforcing deliberative governance.
Ensuring Smooth Operation
Ambiguity regarding powers under Articles 200 and 201 would disrupt governance and constitutional processes.
President’s Satisfaction
The President concluded that the questions raised were of public importance and required authoritative judicial clarification.
Institutional Responsibility
The Court cannot avoid clarifying constitutional doubts raised by the highest constitutional authority.
Judicial Integrity
Answering the reference upholds judicial propriety and reinforces constitutional clarity.
Irrelevance of Alleging Mala Fide
Following the Natural Resources Allocation case, Presidential References cannot be challenged on grounds of improper motive.
Thus, allegations of bad intent behind this reference were deemed irrelevant.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s advisory opinion in the 16th Presidential Reference strengthens constitutional governance by clarifying the powers and limitations of constitutional authorities, reinforcing federalism, separation of powers, democratic accountability, and constitutional morality. It ensures institutional coherence and prevents misuse of constitutional offices through indefinite inaction, contributing significantly to India’s evolving constitutional jurisprudence.
Source : The Hindu