Latest news with #Article143
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
18 hours ago
- Politics
- Business Standard
Presidential reference hides binding rulings on Governors: Kerala tells SC
State of Kerala has urged the Supreme Court to reject Presidential reference on Governors' assent timelines, saying it suppresses key rulings and misuses Article 143 to reopen already settled issues Rimjhim Singh New Delhi The state of Kerala has filed an application in the Supreme Court, challenging the Presidential reference that seeks the court's opinion on the time limits for Governors and the President to assent to Bills passed by state legislatures, Bar and Bench reported. Advocate of the Kerala state has asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the reference without answering the questions raised, arguing that the matter has already been settled by previous rulings of the court. The state said, the reference hides key constitutional judgments, making it legally weak and misleading. Kerala's argument: Reference is not maintainable The Presidential reference seeks the Supreme Court's opinion on 14 key issues concerning the powers of Governors under Article 200 and the President under Article 201. Kerala has strongly opposed this, calling the entire basis of the reference 'flawed'. The state of Kerala objected especially to the suggestion that Article 200 does not specify any deadline for a Governor to act on a Bill. 'This is amazing,' the application states, '…and it is difficult to believe that the Council of Ministers, in advising the Hon'ble President, have not even cared to read the proviso to Article 200 which states that the Governor shall act 'as soon as possible after the presentation to him of the Bill for assent'.' Kerala said that the issues raised have already been clarified by the Supreme Court in three important cases: * State of Telangana vs Secretary to the Governor of Telangana * State of Punjab vs Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab * State of Tamil Nadu vs The Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025 INSC 481) According to the application, 11 out of the 14 questions raised in the reference were directly settled in the Tamil Nadu case, which was delivered just one month before the reference was made. Kerala argued that this judgment was not even mentioned in the reference — a serious omission, the news report said. 'Court cannot be misled or asked to overrule itself' Kerala state mentioned that the omission of these judgments is a way to mislead the top court into reviewing and possibly overruling its own decisions, something that cannot be done through a Presidential reference. 'The present reference suppresses the single important aspect,' Kerala said, '…that the first 11 queries are directly covered by a judgment of the Supreme Court… the existence of the judgment is suppressed in this reference.' The state also said that the Union government never challenged the Tamil Nadu ruling by filing a review or curative petition. Therefore, the verdict is final under Article 141 and cannot be questioned again through a different route. Reference misuses presidential power, Kerala alleges Calling the reference 'a serious misuse' of Article 143, Kerala stated that the top court cannot act as an appellate authority over its own settled judgments. It also said that the President cannot use Article 143 to indirectly reopen legal questions that have already been answered, the news report said. What the Supreme Court had held earlier In April 2025, a Supreme Court Bench ruled that the Governor's inaction under Article 200 was subject to judicial review. It said that while Article 200 does not mention a deadline, the Governor must act 'within a reasonable time' and not stall the democratic process. On the President's powers under Article 201, the court ruled that decisions must be made within three months. If there is any delay, the reasons must be given to the concerned state. Following this, President Droupadi Murmu sent a reference to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Constitution does not allow courts to set such deadlines or suggest 'deemed assent' in case of delays. Kerala, however, said that the Court's rulings are final and that the President's reference is both unnecessary and unconstitutional.
New Indian Express
a day ago
- Politics
- New Indian Express
Kerala govt moves SC seeking rejection of Presidential reference, calls it 'misuse of power'
"A reference under Article 143 cannot be used to overrule findings of law and fact in earlier judgments," the Kerala government stated. It further pointed out that the Union government has not filed any review or curative petition against the April 8 ruling, making it binding under Article 141. "The President and the council of ministers must act in aid of the Supreme Court under Article 144," the plea added. The state also accused the reference of misinterpreting Article 200 by falsely claiming that no timeline exists for governors to act on Bills. "The foundational issues in queries 1 to 11 have already been settled in the Tamil Nadu, Punjab, and Telangana cases," Kerala argued, urging the court to reject the reference as "misleading." The Supreme Court, meanwhile, has agreed to examine the Presidential reference and has sought responses from the Centre and all states by July 29. A five-judge Constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice BR Gavai, will hear the matter on August 29, with the assistance of Attorney General R Venkataramani. The court will determine whether judicially enforceable timelines can be imposed on Governors and the President regarding pending Bills. The controversy stems from the April 8 ruling by a two-judge bench, which held that Governors must act within three months if withholding assent to a bill and within one month if a bill is re-enacted. The court had invoked Article 142 to declare Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi's inaction as "illegal" and deemed 10 pending Bills as approved. President Murmu's reference challenges this verdict, raising questions on whether Governors are bound by ministerial advice and if their discretion under Article 200 is subject to judicial review. With Kerala now accusing the reference of being a "backdoor attempt" to undo settled law, the Supreme Court's upcoming decision could have far-reaching implications on Centre-state relations and the powers of constitutional authorities. Out of 14 crucial questions, the majority and important were as follows: 1) What are the constitutional options before a Governor when a Bill is presented under Article 200 of the Constitution of India? 2) Is the Governor bound by the aid & advice tendered by the Council of Ministers while exercising all options available with him when a Bill is presented before him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India? 3) Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India justiciable? 4) Is Article 361 of the Constitution of India an absolute bar to the judicial review in relation to the actions of a Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India? 5) In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed time limit, and the manner of exercise of powers by the Governor, can timelines be imposed and the manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of all powers under Article 200 of the Constitution of India by the Governor?
The Hindu
6 days ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
Can the Supreme Court's opinion on a Presidential Reference alter its prior ruling?
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (July 22, 2025) issued notices to the Union Government and all States on a Presidential Reference seeking its opinion on whether the President and Governors can be judicially compelled to act within prescribed timelines on Bills passed by State legislatures. A Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha, and A.S. Chandurkar indicated that detailed hearings would begin around mid-August. The matter has been listed for further directions on July 29, when the court will finalise the schedule for the marathon hearing. The Reference, made under Article 143 of the Constitution, stems from President Droupadi Murmu's submission of 14 questions following the Supreme Court's April 8 ruling. That decision, delivered by a Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, arose from a petition filed by the Tamil Nadu government challenging Governor R.N. Ravi's delay in granting assent to ten Bills that had been re-passed by the State legislature, and his subsequent decision to reserve them for Presidential consideration. The judges held that the Governor's prolonged inaction was illegal and, for the first time, imposed judicially enforceable timelines on Governors and the President to act on State Bills. The Presidential Reference broadly seeks clarity on whether courts can prescribe the manner and timeframe within which constitutional authorities such as the President and Governors must act. However, Opposition leaders and legal experts have criticised the move, viewing it as an attempt to unsettle the legal position affirmed in the April 8 ruling. They contend that the Union government is seeking to circumvent the ordinary appellate process by invoking Article 143 to indirectly challenge an unfavourable verdict. What does the court's advisory jurisdiction entail? Article 143(1) of the Constitution confers advisory jurisdiction on the Supreme Court, empowering it to render opinions on questions of law or fact that are not connected to any ongoing litigation. This provision traces its origins to Section 213 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which granted similar powers to the Federal Court of India. The only prerequisites are that the President must be satisfied that such a question has arisen or is likely to arise, and that it is of such a nature and of such public importance that it warrants the court's opinion. Since Independence, this power has been invoked on at least 14 occasions. However, the court is bound to limit itself strictly to the questions referred by the President and cannot exceed the scope of the Reference. The inclusion of this provision was not without debate in the Constituent Assembly. Several members expressed concerns that such an advisory jurisdiction could be misused for political ends. Ultimately, the framers retained it, recognising its utility in resolving constitutional impasses beyond the scope of ordinary litigation. To prevent misuse, it was agreed, and later codified in Article 145(3), that Presidential References must be heard by a Bench of at least five judges.' Can it decline a Reference? Although the Supreme Court has agreed to entertain the present Reference, it is not obligated to do so in every instance. In In Re: The Special Courts Bill (1978), the court held that the use of the word 'may' in Article 143(1), which provides that the court 'may, after such hearing as it thinks fit, report to the President its opinion thereon', confers discretionary power to decline a Reference. However, if the court chooses not to respond, it must record its reasons. This position was reaffirmed in Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India (1994), where the court held that a Reference may be declined if it involves questions requiring expert evidence or those of a purely political nature, which the court is not competent to adjudicate. In 1993, the Supreme Court declined to answer a Presidential Reference concerning the Ayodhya-Babri Masjid dispute. Justices A.M. Ahmadi and S.P. Bharucha cited the pendency of a civil suit on the same issue as grounds for refusing to respond. They also held that the Reference was 'unconstitutional' as it violated the principle of secularism, and expressed concern that the government might use the court's advisory opinion to further its political agenda. A similar instance occurred in 1982, when the court chose not to respond to a reference made by President Giani Zail Singh regarding the constitutionality of a proposed law facilitating the resettlement or permanent return of individuals (or their descendants) who had migrated to Pakistan between March 1, 1947, and May 14, 1954, to Jammu and Kashmir. Before the court could render its opinion, the Jammu & Kashmir Grant of Permit for Resettlement in (or Permanent Return to) the State Bill, 1982, was re-enacted by the legislature and received the Governor's assent. The validity of the law was later challenged through regular proceedings before the Supreme Court. Are advsiory opinions binding? The binding force of advisory opinions rendered by the Supreme Court remains contested. Article 141 of the Constitution states that the 'law declared' by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts in India. In St. Xavier's College v. State of Gujarat (1974), the court clarified that advisory opinions do not amount to binding precedents, though they command significant persuasive authority. Nevertheless, there have been instances where the court has appeared to treat such opinions as authoritative. In Vasantlal Maganbhai Sanjanwala v. State of Bombay (1961), the court relied on the advisory opinion rendered in In Re: The Delhi Laws Act (1951) to adjudicate the question of excessive legislative delegation. A more notable example is R.K. Garg v. Union of India (1981), where Justice P.N. Bhagwati treated the legal reasoning in the Special Courts Bill Reference as binding precedent. This was despite Justice Y.V. Chandrachud's explicit caveat in that Reference that the court's opinion were not binding on other courts. The ambiguity persisted in In Re: Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (1991), where the court reiterated that advisory opinions are entitled to 'due weight and respect' and are 'normally followed.' However, it refrained from settling the question of their binding nature, observing that the issue could be revisited at a more appropriate time. As it stands, any advisory opinion issued in the present presidential Reference would not have binding force. The Supreme Court's April 8 judgment, delivered in the exercise of its adjudicatory jurisdiction under Article 141, would continue to prevail irrespective of the opinion. Meanwhile, similar petitions filed by Kerala and Punjab remain pending before the court. Kerala has sought to withdraw its plea, contending that the April 8 judgment has already settled the law. However, the Union government has opposed the withdrawal, arguing that Kerala's case differs from that of Tamil Nadu. Nonetheless, the advisory opinion in this Reference is expected to carry persuasive weight in those proceedings. Can the court overturn its April 8 ruling through the Reference? In its opinion on the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal Reference, the Supreme Court underscored that Article 143 cannot be used as a means for the executive to seek a review or reversal of its settled judicial decisions. '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 opinion said. It further cautioned that it could not 'countenance a situation' where a question in a Reference is framed in a manner that effectively revisits a settled decision of the court. Accordingly, the only legitimate avenue available to the Union government to challenge the April 8 decision would be to invoke the court's review or curative jurisdiction. However, in In re Natural Resources Allocation (2012), the Supreme Court held that there is no constitutional bar on its ability to clarify, restate, or even formulate a fresh opinion on a question of law under Article 143(1), so long as the ratio decidendi of an earlier judgment remains intact and the rights of parties in the original case are unaffected. The Reference, made by then President Pratibha Patil, followed the court's decision quashing the 2G spectrum allocation and mandating auctions as the sole method for spectrum distribution. While the five-judge Bench acknowledged that the verdict had attained finality, it held that the legal principles underpinning it could be further clarified. Similarly, in 1998, a Presidential Reference was used to modify certain aspects of a previous ruling on judicial appointments. While reaffirming the validity of the collegium system laid down in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (1993), the court revised the composition and functioning of the collegium, thereby refining the appointment process without overturning the earlier judgment. Therefore, while the April 8 judgment is final and binding, its findings on the law may still be refined or elaborated upon by the Constitution Bench hearing the present Reference. Further, the Reference contains 14 questions of law, which mostly stem from the April 8 ruling, but are not limited to it. Notably, the final three questions raise broader issues concerning the scope and exercise of the Supreme Court's discretionary powers under the Constitution.
The Hindu
7 days ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
Can the Supreme Court's opinion on a Presidential Reference affect its prior ruling?
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (July 22, 2025) issued notices to the Union Government and all States on a Presidential Reference seeking its opinion on whether the President and Governors can be judicially compelled to act within prescribed timelines on Bills passed by State legislatures. A Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha, and A.S. Chandurkar indicated that detailed hearings would begin around mid-August. The matter has been listed for further directions on July 29, when the court will finalise the schedule for the marathon hearing. The Reference, made under Article 143 of the Constitution, stems from President Droupadi Murmu's submission of 14 questions following the Supreme Court's April 8 ruling. That decision, delivered by a Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, arose from a petition filed by the Tamil Nadu government challenging Governor R.N. Ravi's delay in granting assent to ten Bills that had been re-passed by the State legislature, and his subsequent decision to reserve them for Presidential consideration. The judges held that the Governor's prolonged inaction was illegal and, for the first time, imposed judicially enforceable timelines on Governors and the President to act on State Bills. The Presidential Reference broadly seeks clarity on whether courts can prescribe the manner and timeframe within which constitutional authorities such as the President and Governors must act. However, Opposition leaders and legal experts have criticised the move, viewing it as an attempt to unsettle the legal position affirmed in the April 8 ruling. They contend that the Union government is seeking to circumvent the ordinary appellate process by invoking Article 143 to indirectly challenge an unfavourable verdict. What does the court's advisory jurisdiction entail? Article 143(1) of the Constitution confers advisory jurisdiction on the Supreme Court, empowering it to render opinions on questions of law or fact that are not connected to any ongoing litigation. This provision traces its origins to Section 213 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which granted similar powers to the Federal Court of India. The only prerequisites are that the President must be satisfied that such a question has arisen or is likely to arise, and that it is of such a nature and of such public importance that it warrants the court's opinion. Since Independence, this power has been invoked on at least 14 occasions. However, the court is bound to limit itself strictly to the questions referred by the President and cannot exceed the scope of the Reference. The inclusion of this provision was not without debate in the Constituent Assembly. Several members expressed concerns that such an advisory jurisdiction could be misused for political ends. Ultimately, the framers retained it, recognising its utility in resolving constitutional impasses beyond the scope of ordinary litigation. To prevent misuse, it was agreed, and later codified in Article 145(3), that Presidential References must be heard by a Bench of at least five judges.' Can it decline a Reference? Although the Supreme Court has agreed to entertain the present Reference, it is not obligated to do so in every instance. In In Re: The Special Courts Bill (1978), the court held that the use of the word 'may' in Article 143(1), which provides that the court 'may, after such hearing as it thinks fit, report to the President its opinion thereon', confers discretionary power to decline a Reference. However, if the court chooses not to respond, it must record its reasons. This position was reaffirmed in Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India (1994), where the court held that a Reference may be declined if it involves questions requiring expert evidence or those of a purely political nature, which the court is not competent to adjudicate. In 1993, the Supreme Court declined to answer a Presidential Reference concerning the Ayodhya-Babri Masjid dispute. Justices A.M. Ahmadi and S.P. Bharucha cited the pendency of a civil suit on the same issue as grounds for refusing to respond. They also held that the Reference was 'unconstitutional' as it violated the principle of secularism, and expressed concern that the government might use the court's advisory opinion to further its political agenda. A similar instance occurred in 1982, when the court chose not to respond to a reference made by President Giani Zail Singh regarding the constitutionality of a proposed law facilitating the resettlement or permanent return of individuals (or their descendants) who had migrated to Pakistan between March 1, 1947, and May 14, 1954, to Jammu and Kashmir. Before the court could render its opinion, the Jammu & Kashmir Grant of Permit for Resettlement in (or Permanent Return to) the State Bill, 1982, was re-enacted by the legislature and received the Governor's assent. The validity of the law was later challenged through regular proceedings before the Supreme Court. Are advsiory opinions binding? The binding force of advisory opinions rendered by the Supreme Court remains contested. Article 141 of the Constitution states that the 'law declared' by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts in India. In St. Xavier's College v. State of Gujarat (1974), the court clarified that advisory opinions do not amount to binding precedents, though they command significant persuasive authority. Nevertheless, there have been instances where the court has appeared to treat such opinions as authoritative. In Vasantlal Maganbhai Sanjanwala v. State of Bombay (1961), the court relied on the advisory opinion rendered in In Re: The Delhi Laws Act (1951) to adjudicate the question of excessive legislative delegation. A more notable example is R.K. Garg v. Union of India (1981), where Justice P.N. Bhagwati treated the legal reasoning in the Special Courts Bill Reference as binding precedent. This was despite Justice Y.V. Chandrachud's explicit caveat in that Reference that the court's opinion were not binding on other courts. The ambiguity persisted in In Re: Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (1991), where the court reiterated that advisory opinions are entitled to 'due weight and respect' and are 'normally followed.' However, it refrained from settling the question of their binding nature, observing that the issue could be revisited at a more appropriate time. As it stands, any advisory opinion issued in the present presidential Reference would not have binding force. The Supreme Court's April 8 judgment, delivered in the exercise of its adjudicatory jurisdiction under Article 141, would continue to prevail irrespective of the opinion. Meanwhile, similar petitions filed by Kerala and Punjab remain pending before the court. Kerala has sought to withdraw its plea, contending that the April 8 judgment has already settled the law. However, the Union government has opposed the withdrawal, arguing that Kerala's case differs from that of Tamil Nadu. Nonetheless, the advisory opinion in this Reference is expected to carry persuasive weight in those proceedings. Can the court overturn its April 8 ruling through the Reference? In its opinion on the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal Reference, the Supreme Court underscored that Article 143 cannot be used as a means for the executive to seek a review or reversal of its settled judicial decisions. '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 opinion said. It further cautioned that it could not 'countenance a situation' where a question in a Reference is framed in a manner that effectively revisits a settled decision of the court. Accordingly, the only legitimate avenue available to the Union government to challenge the April 8 decision would be to invoke the court's review or curative jurisdiction. However, in In re Natural Resources Allocation (2012), the Supreme Court held that there is no constitutional bar on its ability to clarify, restate, or even formulate a fresh opinion on a question of law under Article 143(1), so long as the ratio decidendi of an earlier judgment remains intact and the rights of parties in the original case are unaffected. The Reference, made by then President Pratibha Patil, followed the court's decision quashing the 2G spectrum allocation and mandating auctions as the sole method for spectrum distribution. While the five-judge Bench acknowledged that the verdict had attained finality, it held that the legal principles underpinning it could be further clarified. Similarly, in 1998, a Presidential Reference was used to modify certain aspects of a previous ruling on judicial appointments. While reaffirming the validity of the collegium system laid down in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (1993), the court revised the composition and functioning of the collegium, thereby refining the appointment process without overturning the earlier judgment. Therefore, while the April 8 judgment is final and binding, its findings on the law may still be refined or elaborated upon by the five-judge Bench hearing the present Reference. Further, the Reference contains 14 questions of law, which mostly stem from the April 8 ruling, but are not limited to it. Notably, the final three questions raise broader issues concerning the scope and exercise of the Supreme Court's discretionary powers under the Constitution.
Hindustan Times
19-07-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
CJI-led Constitution bench to take up presidential reference on July 22
A five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai, is set to take up the presidential reference on July 22 to examine the legality of prescribing timelines for governors and the president to act on state bills. The Supreme Court of India. (File Photo) The eagerly awaited hearing will be conducted by a bench comprising the three most senior judges of the court -- CJI Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, and Justice Vikram Nath, along with Justices PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar. Notably, the bench includes four current or future Chief Justices of India, with Justice Surya Kant set to take over in November 2025, followed by Justices Vikram Nath in February 2027 and Justice Narasimha in October 2027. The decision to constitute a Constitution bench came after an internal procedural debate within the court over whether the presidential reference, filed under Article 143 of the Constitution, must be placed directly before a Constitution bench or whether a smaller, three-judge bench could first conduct preliminary hearings and issue notices. People familiar with the matter told Hindustan Times that the Supreme Court registry, after reviewing past Article 143 references and Supreme Court rules, advised the CJI that the reference must be taken up by a five-judge bench from the outset, even for the purpose of issuing notices to the attorney general, solicitor general and all states. 'After going through the precedents and the pertinent provisions under the Constitution and the Supreme Court rules, it was suggested that it would be in fitness of things for a five-judge bench to take up the matter even for a preliminary hearing,' said a person involved in the process. 'There was an unequivocal view that since the advisory jurisdiction under Article 143 involves a substantial question of constitutional law, it must be heard by a Constitution bench right from the beginning,' the person added. This internal clarity follows HT's May 21 report that the court was weighing its options, with a question raised whether a smaller bench could first entertain the reference, issue notices, and later escalate it to a larger bench. The registry's review reportedly considered previous Article 143 references and found that substantial questions of law arising under the advisory jurisdiction were historically taken up directly by benches of at least five judges, reinforcing the constitutional mandate under Article 145(3). In a rare move invoking Article 143 of the Constitution, President Droupadi Murmu had on May 13 sought the Supreme Court's advisory opinion on 14 complex legal questions following the court's April 8 judgment that laid down timelines for governors and the President to act on state bills. The reference asked the court to clarify whether the president and governors must follow judicially prescribed timelines despite the Constitution being silent on such timeframes, and whether such executive actions are justiciable before the courts prior to a bill becoming law. The Supreme Court's April 8 ruling, delivered by a bench of justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, for the first time prescribed a deadline of three months for the president to decide on a bill referred by a governor, and held that a governor must act 'forthwith' or within one month on re-enacted bills. If a governor withholds assent or reserves a bill for the president's consideration, the judgment held, this must be done within three months of its presentation. In that case, which involved 10 pending bills from Tamil Nadu, the court went so far as to invoke Article 142 to hold that the governor's inaction was 'illegal' and the bills would be deemed to have received assent. The presidential reference has flagged several critical constitutional queries, including whether such 'deemed assent' is constitutionally valid, and whether the Supreme Court can impose procedural directions on the president or governors. It questioned whether Article 142 can be used to override express constitutional provisions, and whether the president's discretion under Article 201 can be subject to timelines or judicial review. The reference also raised doubts over whether the April 8 judgment should have been decided by a larger bench, since Article 145(3) of the Constitution mandates that substantial questions of law must be heard by at least five judges. 'This concern is being looked into seriously, and the registry's review of precedent is crucial to determine how to proceed procedurally,' said another person familiar with the internal discussion. Since independence, Article 143 has been invoked at least 14 times to seek the court's advisory opinion on complex questions of law and public importance. While the court's opinion in such references is not binding on the president, they have historically played a vital role in constitutional interpretation. The 14 questions in the current reference were the outcome of a month-long process involving attorney general (AG) R Venkataramani, solicitor general (SG) Tushar Mehta, and the Union law ministry. After the court's judgment was received on April 12, Mehta's office was tasked with identifying key legal questions, and several rounds of meetings were held to refine the draft. By May 7, the final version was shared with the President's secretariat, leading to its formal submission to the Supreme Court a week later. 'The questions go to the heart of Centre-State relations, the federal structure, and the limits of judicial and executive powers,' said a government official familiar with the drafting process. 'This is not just about one judgment, but the architecture of how laws are made and how constitutional roles are performed.' Among the issues raised in the reference are whether decisions of governors and the president under Articles 200 and 201 can be judicially reviewed before a law takes effect; whether courts can direct or substitute the president or governor's discretion using Article 142; and whether constitutional immunity under Article 361 precludes such review altogether. Another critical question pertains to whether disputes of this nature should only be adjudicated under Article 131 of the Constitution, which governs disputes between states and the Union, or whether the Supreme Court can resolve them through writ jurisdiction or otherwise. The reference also asks whether the governor is constitutionally bound to act on the aid and advice of the state's council of ministers while exercising discretion under Article 200.
