Calculation of Salary Under 7th Central Pay Commission(7th Pay Matrix)

Introduction

President Droupadi Murmu’s unprecedented move to seek an advisory opinion from the Supreme Court of India under Article 143(1) has reignited a fundamental debate on the separation of powers, federalism, and the boundaries of judicial review in the Indian Constitution. This development follows the R N Ravi supreme court judgement, the landmark April 2025 judgment that declared Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi’s withholding of assent to ten state legislative bills as “illegal and erroneous,” and, for the first time, set timelines for both Governors and the President to act on bills passed by state legislatures. The President’s reference raises critical questions: Can the Supreme Court’s own decision, delivered in its adjudicatory capacity, be revisited or overturned through its advisory jurisdiction? Are timelines imposed by the judiciary on constitutional authorities like the President and Governors justiciable, or do they amount to judicial overreach? This comprehensive analysis delves into the legal background, the Supreme Court’s judgment, the constitutional provisions at stake, and the broader implications of the President’s advisory reference.

The Constitutional and Political Background

The Role of Governors and the President in State Legislation

The Indian federal structure, as envisaged by the Constitution, assigns significant roles to both the Governor of a state and the President of India in the legislative process of states. When a bill is passed by the state legislature, Article 200 of the Constitution empowers the Governor to either give assent, withhold assent, return the bill for reconsideration (if it is not a money bill), or reserve the bill for the President’s consideration. This framework was designed to ensure a balance between state autonomy and central oversight, especially in matters where state legislation could impinge upon national interests or the powers of the judiciary.

However, the Constitution does not prescribe any specific timeline within which the Governor must act on a bill, nor does it set a deadline for the President to decide on bills reserved for her consideration under Article 201. This absence of explicit timeframes has, over the decades, led to controversies and constitutional crises, particularly when Governors-often seen as representatives of the central government-have delayed or withheld assent to bills passed by opposition-ruled state legislatures.

The Tamil Nadu Bills Controversy: A Constitutional Standoff

The R N Ravi Supreme Court Judgement of April 2025 stems from a long-standing dispute between the DMK-led Tamil Nadu government and Governor R N Ravi. Over the period from November 2020 to April 2023, the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly passed multiple bills related to university governance, anti-corruption, and public appointments. Governor Ravi withheld assent to ten of these bills, returned some without explanation, and ultimately referred them to the President after the Assembly re-passed them unchanged.

The state government challenged this prolonged inaction and perceived obstruction in the Supreme Court, arguing that the Governor’s conduct amounted to a constitutional impasse and undermined the democratic mandate of the elected legislature. The case thus became a test of constitutional boundaries: How much discretion does a Governor have in withholding or delaying assent? Can the judiciary impose timelines or direct constitutional authorities to act expeditiously?

The Supreme Court’s Judgment: R N Ravi and the Limits of Gubernatorial Discretion

Key Findings of the R N Ravi Supreme Court Judgement

On April 8, 2025, a Division Bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan delivered the landmark R N Ravi Supreme court judgement, fundamentally redefining the powers and responsibilities of Governors under Article 200. The Court unanimously held that Governor R N Ravi’s withholding of assent to the ten bills was “illegal” and “erroneous,” and that his conduct was not in good faith. It clarified that the Governor’s powers under Article 200 do not include the authority to indefinitely delay or obstruct the legislative process.

The judgment prescribed specific timelines for the Governor’s actions: the Governor must assent to or reserve a bill within one month, return a bill with a message within three months, and, if the bill is re-passed by the legislature, must give assent within one month. For the first time, the Court also set a three-month deadline for the President to decide on bills reserved for her consideration by the Governor.

Judicial Review and Justiciability

A central theme of the judgment was the justiciability of gubernatorial and presidential discretion. The Court reiterated that no constitutional authority, however high, is beyond the reach of judicial review. While the scope of review may vary, the exercise of constitutional powers in an unconstitutional, arbitrary, or mala fide manner can be struck down by the courts. The Court drew upon precedents such as S R Bommai v. Union of India (1994), Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006), and Kihoto Holohan v. Zachillhu (1992) to affirm that even the discretion of the Governor or President is subject to constitutional limits and judicial scrutiny.

The Role of Constitutional History and Drafting

The judgment also engaged with the constitutional history and drafting of Article 200. The framers had initially included the phrase “in his discretion” in the draft Article, but this was later removed to prevent the Governor from acting as an independent political actor and to ensure that the office remained largely ceremonial, acting on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. The Court used both textualist and purposive approaches, relying on drafting history and the broader framework of federalism and democracy to interpret the Governor’s powers.

The Mandamus and the Right to Seek Judicial Direction

Significantly, the Court held that if the Governor or President fails to act within the prescribed timelines, the state government can approach the Supreme Court to seek a writ of mandamus, directing the constitutional authority to discharge its official duty. This expansion of judicial review and the ability to seek judicial direction against the President or Governor marked a significant shift in the constitutional balance of powers.

The Aftermath: President Murmu’s Advisory Reference and the Constitutional Debate

The President’s Reference under Article 143(1)

In response to the Supreme Court’s judgment, President Droupadi Murmu invoked Article 143(1) of the Constitution, seeking the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion on whether timelines can be imposed on the President and Governors for acting on bills, and whether such actions are justiciable in the absence of explicit constitutional provisions. The reference, made just five weeks after the judgment, contains fourteen questions of law, many of which are drawn from the April 8 ruling but also raise broader issues about the Supreme Court’s powers and the contours of Centre-state disputes.

The Advisory Jurisdiction: Nature and Scope

Article 143(1) empowers the President to refer any question of law or fact of public importance to the Supreme Court for its opinion. The Court’s opinion under this provision is advisory, not binding, and does not have the force of law as a judicial pronouncement under Article 141. The President is not bound to act on the opinion, although it is usually respected and followed for its authoritative value.

The Supreme Court has, in the past, clarified that its advisory jurisdiction cannot be used to review or overturn its own judicial decisions. In the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal case (1992), the Court held that a settled question of law, already decided in its adjudicatory capacity, cannot be reopened through a reference under Article 143. The Court may also decline to answer a reference if the questions are too vague, political, or lack constitutional relevance, as seen in the M Ismail Faruqui reference (1995) and the Jammu & Kashmir Resettlement Law reference (1982).

The Constitutional Questions Raised

The President’s reference seeks clarity on several key issues:

1. Whether the exercise of constitutional discretion by the President under Article 201 is justiciable, and whether timelines can be imposed by judicial orders in the absence of explicit constitutional provisions.
2. What are the constitutional options available to a Governor when a bill is presented under Article 200, and whether the Governor is bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
3. Whether the Supreme Court, in its advisory jurisdiction, can revisit or overturn its own prior judicial decisions.
4. The binding nature of advisory opinions and the extent to which they can guide or constrain executive action.

These questions go to the heart of the constitutional design, the separation of powers, and the relationship between the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary.

Article 143: The Advisory Opinion Mechanism in the Indian Constitution

Historical Origins and Evolution

The power of the President to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion on questions of law or fact of public importance traces its origins to Section 213 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which allowed references to the Federal Court on questions of law. The framers of the Indian Constitution expanded this mechanism to include both questions of law and fact, and to cover hypothetical as well as actual controversies.

Article 143(1) provides that the President may refer any question of law or fact that has arisen, or is likely to arise, and is of such public importance that it is expedient to obtain the Supreme Court’s opinion. Article 143(2) deals with pre-Constitution treaties and agreements, requiring the Court to tender its opinion.

The Nature of Advisory Opinions: Binding or Not?

A recurring question in Indian constitutional law is whether advisory opinions rendered by the Supreme Court under Article 143 are binding. The Court has consistently held that such opinions do not have the force of law and are not binding on the President or on itself in subsequent cases. In the Ahmedabad St. Xavier’s College case (1974), the Court clarified that advisory opinions are not binding precedents under Article 141, though they are entitled to great respect and are normally followed.

The non-binding nature of advisory opinions means that the President or Parliament may, in theory, disregard the Court’s advice, although doing so could trigger a constitutional crisis or political controversy.

The Supreme Court’s Discretion to Answer or Decline References

Article 143(1) uses the word “may,” indicating that the Supreme Court has the discretion to answer or decline a reference. The Court has, on rare occasions, declined to answer references that were deemed inappropriate or where the legal issue was already sub judice. For example, in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid reference (1993), the Court declined to answer a question about the existence of a Hindu temple at the disputed site, as the matter was already pending in a civil suit.

The Advisory Opinion as a Tool of Constitutional Dialogue

Despite its non-binding character, the advisory jurisdiction under Article 143 has played a pivotal role in shaping constitutional jurisprudence and resolving inter-institutional conflicts. Presidential references have addressed issues ranging from legislative delegation (Delhi Laws Act, 1951) and the harmonization of fundamental rights with directive principles (Kerala Education Bill, 1958) to the cession of territory (Berubari Union, 1960) and the powers and privileges of state legislatures (Keshav Singh, 1965).

The advisory mechanism thus serves as a means for the executive to seek independent legal advice on complex constitutional questions, fostering a dialogue between the branches of government.

Key Legal Issues in the R N Ravi Judgment: Timelines and Judicial Review

The Supreme Court’s Timelines for Assent to Bills

The most controversial aspect of the Supreme Court’s April 2025 judgment was its prescription of specific timelines for the Governor and the President to act on bills passed by state legislatures. The Court held that indefinite delays in granting assent or reserving bills for the President are unconstitutional and undermine the democratic process. It set a one-month deadline for the Governor to act, a three-month deadline for the President to decide on reserved bills, and required reasons to be recorded for any delay.

The Court’s reasoning was rooted in the need to prevent the misuse of discretionary powers and to ensure that the will of the elected legislature is not thwarted by executive inaction. The judgment emphasized that the Governor and the President are constitutional functionaries, not political actors, and must act in accordance with the constitutional ethos and the aspirations of the people.

The Debate on Judicial Overreach and Separation of Powers

The imposition of timelines by the judiciary has sparked a debate on judicial overreach and the separation of powers. Critics argue that the Constitution does not prescribe any such timelines and that the judiciary, by filling this gap, is encroaching upon the domain of the executive and the legislature. The government, including the Vice President and the Attorney General, has criticized the judgment as undermining the prerogatives of the President and Parliament, and as an example of the judiciary overstepping its constitutional mandate.

Supporters of the judgment, on the other hand, contend that the absence of timelines has led to constitutional crises and that judicial intervention is necessary to uphold the rule of law and prevent the abuse of power. They argue that the Court’s directions are in line with its duty to protect the basic structure of the Constitution and to ensure the effective functioning of parliamentary democracy.

The Justiciability of Presidential and Gubernatorial Discretion

A central question raised by the President’s reference is whether the exercise of discretion by the President under Article 201 is justiciable, and whether the judiciary can prescribe the manner and timelines for the exercise of such discretion. The Supreme Court, in its April 2025 judgment, held that the actions of the Governor and the President are subject to judicial review, especially when exercised in an unconstitutional or mala fide manner. The Court allowed state governments to seek a writ of mandamus against the President or Governor if they fail to act within the prescribed timelines.

This expansion of judicial review has significant implications for the balance of powers and the federal structure of the Constitution. It raises questions about the limits of judicial intervention and the autonomy of constitutional authorities.

Can the Supreme Court Overturn R N Ravi Judgement Through Advisory Opinion?

The Limits of the Advisory Jurisdiction

The most critical legal issue arising from the President’s reference is whether the Supreme Court, in its advisory jurisdiction under Article 143, can revisit or overturn its own prior judicial decisions. The Court has, in several cases, clarified that its advisory opinion cannot be used as a mechanism to review or reverse settled judicial decisions.

In the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal case (1992), the Court held that a question already decided in its adjudicatory jurisdiction cannot be reopened through a presidential reference. The Court stated:

“When this Court in its adjudicatory jurisdiction pronounces its authoritative opinion on a question of law, it cannot be said that there is any doubt about the question of law or the same is res integra so as to require the President to know what the true position of law on the question is.”

The Court further emphasized that it cannot “sit in appeal” over its own decisions through the advisory mechanism, nor can the President invest the Court with appellate jurisdiction via a reference under Article 143.

The Mechanisms for Review and Curative Petitions

If the government or any party seeks to challenge or reverse a Supreme Court judgment, the proper constitutional mechanisms are a review petition or a curative petition, not a presidential reference. The review process allows the Court to reconsider its judgment in light of new evidence or legal arguments, while a curative petition is an extraordinary remedy to correct a gross miscarriage of justice.

The President’s reference, therefore, cannot directly lead to the overturning of the April 2025 judgment. The Supreme Court’s advisory opinion, even if it differs from its earlier ruling, would not have binding force and would not automatically reverse the judicial decision.

The Role of Larger Benches and Pending Cases

It is possible, however, that similar cases pending before the Supreme Court from other states, such as Kerala and Punjab, could be referred to a larger constitutional bench, which may then reconsider the legal questions involved. The President’s reference may influence the Court’s approach in such cases, but it does not, by itself, overturn the existing judgment.

The Broader Implications of the R N Ravi Judgment: Federalism, Democracy, and Constitutional Morality

The Centre-State Dynamic and the Role of Governors

The controversy surrounding Governor R N Ravi’s actions and the Supreme Court’s judgment highlights the ongoing tensions in India’s federal structure. Governors, appointed by the Centre, have often been accused of acting as agents of the central government, especially in opposition-ruled states. The withholding or delaying of assent to state legislation has been a recurring source of friction, raising questions about the autonomy of state governments and the integrity of the legislative process.

The Supreme Court’s intervention, by clarifying the limits of gubernatorial discretion and prescribing timelines, seeks to restore the balance between state autonomy and central oversight, and to prevent the misuse of constitutional offices for political ends.

The Democratic Mandate and the Will of the Legislature

At its core, the debate is about the sanctity of the democratic mandate and the will of the people as expressed through their elected representatives. The indefinite withholding of assent to bills passed by the legislature undermines the legislative process and reduces the aspirations of the people to “mere pieces of paper,” as the Supreme Court observed. The Court’s judgment is thus an affirmation of the principle that constitutional functionaries must act in accordance with the democratic ethos and the letter and spirit of the Constitution.

The Continuing Evolution of Constitutional Law  

The President’s advisory reference and the ongoing debate are reminders of the dynamic and evolving nature of constitutional law in India. The Constitution is not a static document, but a living instrument that must adapt to changing circumstances and challenges. The dialogue between the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary, mediated through mechanisms like Article 143, is essential to the health and vitality of Indian democracy.

Conclusion: Navigating the Constitutional Crossroads

The invocation of Article 143 by President Droupadi Murmu, following the Supreme Court’s landmark R N Ravi Supreme Court Judgement against Governor R N Ravi, has brought to the forefront some of the most profound questions in Indian constitutional law. Can the Supreme Court, through its advisory jurisdiction, revisit or overturn its own judicial decisions? Are timelines imposed by the judiciary on constitutional authorities justiciable, or do they amount to judicial overreach? What is the proper balance between state autonomy and central oversight, and how can the will of the people be safeguarded against executive inaction?

The answers to these questions lie at the intersection of constitutional text, history, and evolving judicial interpretation. The Supreme Court’s judgment in the Tamil Nadu bills case marks a significant step in clarifying the powers and responsibilities of Governors and the President, and in affirming the supremacy of the democratic mandate. The President’s advisory reference, while unlikely to overturn the judgment, provides an opportunity for further reflection and dialogue on the boundaries of judicial review and the separation of powers.

Ultimately, the strength of the Indian Constitution lies in its ability to adapt, to foster dialogue between institutions, and to uphold the principles of democracy, federalism, and constitutional morality. The ongoing debate is a testament to the resilience of India’s constitutional order and the enduring quest for justice and good governance.

neototo neototo neototo neototo neototo neototo neototo jmkbet jmkbet jmkbet jmkbet jmkbet jmkbet jmkbet jmkbet neototo neototo neototo jmkbet neototo neototo situs toto toto macau toto slot