What does the SC’s advisory opinion imply?
Context
-
The Supreme Court delivered its advisory opinion on a Presidential Reference under Article 143.
-
The reference arose from a two-judge SC judgment (April 2025, State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu).
-
The advisory opinion largely negated the April 2025 judgment.
Why was the Presidential Reference made?
The April 2025 judgment had:
-
Directed that Governors / President must decide on Bills within 3 months.
-
Held that such decisions are judicially reviewable before they become law.
-
Invoked Article 142 to grant ‘deemed assent’ to Bills held up by Tamil Nadu’s Governor.
This triggered doubts requiring constitutional clarification → 14 questions were referred, mainly on:
-
Interpretation of Articles 200 & 201
-
Powers of courts to prescribe timelines
-
Stage at which Governor/President’s actions become justiciable
-
Scope of Supreme Court’s power under Article 142
Supreme Court’s Key Findings (Advisory Opinion – 2025)
| Issue | Court’s Opinion |
|---|---|
| Governor’s choices under Art. 200 | Assent / Reserve for President / Withhold & return |
| Is Governor bound by CoM? | Not bound by aid & advice while acting under Art. 200 |
| Is inaction justiciable? | Governor’s actions not normally justiciable; limited mandamus only in case of prolonged unexplained inaction |
| Can courts fix timelines? | No — judiciary cannot prescribe time limits where Constitution is silent |
| Are Governor/President decisions reviewable before enactment? | Not justiciable until Bill becomes law |
| Article 142 power to give ‘deemed assent’ | Not permissible — SC cannot substitute Governor/President |
| Scope of current reference | A “functional reference” affecting day-to-day constitutional functioning |
Overall: The advisory opinion rolls back the April 2025 judgment and strengthens the autonomy and discretion of Governors on Bill assent.
Concerns Raised
-
Break with precedents:
-
Shamsher Singh (1974) and Nabam Rebia (2016) → Governors should act on aid & advice of Council of Ministers.
-
Sarkaria Commission (1987) → Discretion limited only to rare cases of patent unconstitutionality.
-
-
Now, the Court interprets actions under Art. 200 as discretionary, potentially weakening the legislative autonomy of States.
-
No timeline may allow Governors to indefinitely delay Bills.
-
Central–State political conflict may intensify → risk to cooperative federalism.
Way Forward
-
Prevent politicisation of the gubernatorial office.
-
Governors must show “responsible urgency” while disposing Bills.
-
Need for:
-
Clarificatory constitutional amendment or
-
Binding Parliamentary legislation prescribing timelines for assent.
-
-
Federalism being a basic feature of the Constitution, the Governor should not become a political veto point.
Related Posts
Is India Getting Hotter?
Posted on
