Presidential Reference on Gubernatorial Timelines
02.12.2025
Presidential Reference on Gubernatorial Timelines
Context
The Supreme Court Constitution Bench, while examining a Presidential Reference, stated that courts should avoid fixing timelines for Governors on Bills. It noted the Constitution’s increasingly “swadeshi” character.
About the News
Background:
• Originates from an earlier ruling prescribing timelines for Governors/President on Bills.
• The Union government sought clarity on whether judiciary can set such deadlines.
• Reference also questions the extent of judicial review before a Bill becomes law.
Court Observations:
• Imposing timelines on constitutional authorities may exceed judicial powers unless textually supported.
• Issues relate to federal functioning under Articles 200–201.
• Advisory opinion under Article 143 guides but does not override past judgments.
Constitutional Framework on Presidential Reference
Article 143: Enables the President to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion on important legal issues.
Article 145: Mandates a minimum five-judge bench to hear such references.
Nature of the Opinion:
• Advisory, not binding, but highly persuasive.
• Does not create precedent.
• Court may decline to answer vague or inappropriate questions.
Judicial Precedents: Major References
• Delhi Laws Act (1951): Defined limits of delegated legislation.
• Kerala Education Bill (1958): Framed harmony between FRs and DPSPs; clarified minority rights.
• Berubari Union (1960): Cession of territory requires constitutional amendment.
• Presidential Election Reference (1974): Election proceeds even if legislatures are dissolved.
• Special Courts Bill (1978): Questions must be precise; courts should avoid legislative intrusion.
• Third Judges Case (1998): Detailed guidelines for collegium appointments.
Current Perspective
Presidential references clarify constitutional ambiguities without adversarial litigation and guide institutional practice.
Challenges
Issues in Current Reference (Arts. 200–201):
• Whether judiciary can set timelines when Constitution is silent.
• Judicial review of gubernatorial/presidential conduct before assent.
• Scope of Article 142 for ensuring constitutional functioning.
• Whether earlier rulings can be revisited in advisory jurisdiction.
Federal Dynamics:
• Increasing Centre–State tensions require clearer constitutional guidance.
Way Forward
Timelines:
• Any framework must align with constitutional text and prevent indefinite delays.
Balance of Powers:
• Judiciary must preserve the autonomy of Governors/President while enabling accountability.
Federal Governance:
• Clear guidelines will reduce friction and improve legislative efficiency.
Conclusion
Article 143 enables resolution of complex constitutional issues outside adversarial courts. Though advisory, these opinions shape federalism, legislation, and appointments. The present reference can strengthen clarity on gubernatorial action, reduce Centre–State friction, and uphold constitutional balance.