President's invocation of Article 143 rare but not first time, say experts

President Murmu's referral to the Supreme Court under Article 143(1) revives a rare constitutional tool used to seek advisory opinions on complex legal questions

President Droupadi Murmu invoking powers under the Presidential Reference to consult the Supreme Court is one of the rare occasions that the special provision has been used, according to legal experts.

 

It is, however, not the first time that the President has used powers granted under Article 143(1) of the Constitution to take the views of the court on questions of law or a matter of public importance, they said.

 

Murmu on Wednesday posed 14 questions to the Supreme Court on several aspects of law, including on the ambit of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, which gives the court powers “for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it”.

 

On April 8, a two-judge Bench of Justice J B Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan had invoked the special powers granted to the Supreme Court to deliver a judgment that asked governors and the President to decide on state Bills passed by the legislature within fixed timelines. 

 

“The intention was to ensure that the executive, led by the President, could have the opinion of the apex court, being the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution, on matters of national significance. While it is clearly an ‘advisory’, such opinions carry immense persuasive value and reinforce the institutional dialogue between the executive and the judiciary,” said Anuradha Mukherjee, partner at law firm Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas.

 

However, this is not the first time the President has invoked this Article.

 

“While rare, presidential references are not without precedent. Historical examples include the Delhi Laws Act, 1951, reference, which questioned the extent of legislative delegation, and the Berubari Union case in 1960 on the issue of cession of territory. Another key instance was in 1998 in ‘presidential appointments’, when the court was asked to give opinion on the appointment of judges after the ‘second judges case’,” said Soayib Qureshi, partner, PSL Advocates & Solicitors.

 

What sets the present reference apart is its direct challenge to a recent binding judgment of the court and tests the boundaries of constitutional interpretation, the inter-institutional relations between the executive and judiciary, and ultimately, the fidelity to federalism and democratic governance, he said.

 

“Importantly, the opinion rendered under Article 143(1) is not binding. However, as a matter of constitutional convention and judicial respect, such opinions are accorded significant weight and are often followed by the executive,” Qureshi added.

 

The Constitution does not prescribe a time limit for the President to give assent to Bills.

 

For Union Bills (Bills passed by both Houses of Parliament), Article 111 states when a Bill is presented to the President, the President shall declare whether assent is to be given or if it is withheld. If it's not a Money Bill, the President may return it “as soon as possible” for reconsideration.

 

For state Bills reserved by the governor for the President's consideration, Article 201 outlines the President’s powers. It states that the President shall declare either assent or if assent is withheld.

 

Similar to Article 111, Article 201 does not have a deadline for the President. The Article does not set timelines for the governor of the state either.

 

“The absence of explicit timelines in these constitutional provisions has been a point of discussion and was a key aspect of the Supreme Court's April judgment, which did suggest timelines for the President when acting on State Bills reserved under Article 201. The President’s current reference to the Supreme Court under Article 143 includes questions specifically asking whether such timelines can be imposed by judicial orders when the Constitution itself does not prescribe them,” said Aviral Kapoor, partner at law firm Alagh & Kapoor Law Offices. 

Awaiting assent

 

*  Of the Bills passed in 2024, 18% got assent after over three months. This includes Bills awaiting assent as of April 2025

 

*  States where a high proportion of Bills got assent after 3 months include Himachal Pradesh (72%), Sikkim (56%), and West Bengal (38%)

 

*  60% of Bills received assent from Governor within a month

 

*  5 states (Arunachal Pradesh, Bihar, Delhi, Mizoram, and Rajasthan) saw Bills getting assent within a month

 

Source: PRS Legislative Research