Supreme Court Answers 13 of 14 Questions Referred by the President: A Detailed Analysis

Supreme Court Answers 13 of 14 Questions Referred by the President: A Detailed Analysis

In a significant constitutional development, the Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench has delivered its opinion on 13 out of 14 questions referred by the President of India under Article 143 of the Constitution. This provision empowers the President to seek the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion on matters of public importance that require judicial clarity.

A five-judge Constitution Bench was formed by the Chief Justice of India to examine the questions concerning constitutional procedure, gubernatorial discretion, judicial powers, and the interpretation of key articles such as 200, 201, 361, 142, 131, and others. These questions arose primarily from disputes between the executive and the judiciary surrounding the powers of Governors and State Legislatures.

This blog expands on the issues, the constitutional context, and the Supreme Court’s broad reasoning, presented in an easy and accessible form.

1. Background: Why These Questions Were Sent to the Supreme Court?

Over recent years, several states witnessed friction between Governors and elected governments. These issues included:

Delay in granting assent to bills

Returning bills without clear justification

Withholding bills indefinitely

Disputes around whether a Governor can refer bills to the President in routine cases

Confusion over the time frame for gubernatorial action

Use of Article 142 for implementation of certain judicial directions

To settle these recurring constitutional tensions, the President sought clarity from the Supreme Court on 14 specific questions.

2. Key Themes Behind the 14 Constitutional Questions

Although each question is unique, they broadly revolve around the following themes:

a) Powers of the Governor under Articles 200 and 201

Can a Governor indefinitely delay assent to bills passed by the state legislature?

What constitutes “reasonable time”?

Can the Governor return a bill multiple times?

b) Scope of Immunity under Article 361

Can the Governor be questioned for not acting within constitutional timelines?

c) Judicial directions under Article 142

Can the Supreme Court direct Governors or Presidents to act within specific time frames?

d) Whether certain disputes fall under Article 131

Should conflicts between a state government and a Governor be treated as disputes between two governments?

e) Whether the Governor’s discretionary powers have limits

Can the Governor choose not to act even when the Constitution mandates action?

3. Supreme Court’s Major Observations and Answers

The Constitution Bench provided clarity on 13 questions, marking an important moment in India’s constitutional evolution. While each answer is nuanced, here are the broad takeaways:

1. Governors Cannot Delay Bills Indefinitely

The Court emphasised that the Governor is not an alternate legislative chamber. He/she must act within a reasonable time on bills passed by the state legislature.

2. “Reasonable Time” Must Be Real and Practical

The phrase cannot be stretched into months or years. Governors are expected to act promptly, respecting the democratic mandate.

3. Governors Have Limited Options Under Article 200

The Constitution gives the Governor three choices:

1. Give assent

2. Withhold assent

3. Return the bill for reconsideration (if not a Money Bill)

The Governor cannot:

Sit on bills endlessly

Routinely escalate bills to the President

4. Article 361 Does Not Permit Constitutional Inaction

While Governors enjoy legal immunity from court proceedings, constitutional duties cannot be avoided. The Court stated that immunity does not justify delay or disregard of constitutional obligations.

5. Reference of Bills to the President Should Be Exceptional

The Governor must exercise this power sparingly, only for matters where a genuine constitutional conflict exists.

6. Once a Bill Is Reconsidered and Passed Again, the Governor Must Act

After a State Legislature re-passes a bill, the Governor cannot return it again.

7. Court Can Intervene When Constitutional Deadlock Occurs

Though courts cannot tell a Governor how to decide, they can ensure that he/she takes a decision.

8. Article 142 Cannot Be Used to Perform Executive Functions

The Court cannot directly assume the role of the Governor or President, but it can issue binding directions when constitutional machinery is blocked.

9. Disputes About Bills Are Not "State vs. Union" Disputes under Article 131

Therefore, such matters cannot be brought under Article 131’s original jurisdiction.

10. Constitutional Morality Must Guide Governor’s Conduct

The Governor must remain a neutral constitutional figure, not an active political participant.

4. Why the Supreme Court Declined to Answer One Question

The Court chose not to answer one of the 14 questions, considering it either hypothetical, unnecessary for judicial interpretation, or better left to constitutional practice rather than judicial ruling.

5. Impact of the Supreme Court’s Clarifications

The judgment plays a crucial role in:

a) Strengthening Federalism

It reaffirms that elected state governments cannot be undermined by procedural delays.

b) Protecting Legislative Supremacy

Once passed by a legislature, a bill deserves timely attention, not indefinite postponement.

c) Setting Boundaries for Constitutional Offices

Governors must remain facilitators of the constitutional process, not obstacles.

d) Reducing Centre–State Friction

Clear rules prevent political misuse of constitutional provisions.

6. Conclusion: A Landmark Moment for Constitutional Governance

The Supreme Court’s responses to the President’s queries mark a major step in clarifying the balance of power between Governors and elected governments. By answering 13 of the 14 questions, the Court has strengthened democratic accountability, emphasised constitutional responsibility, and reduced ambiguity in the functioning of key constitutional offices.

This advisory opinion will guide future interactions between state executives, Governors, and the judiciary, ensuring smoother governance and a healthier federal structure.