The Supreme Court of India is set to deliver its advisory opinion on Thursday regarding a rare presidential reference that has stirred debates over the boundaries of judicial authority, separation of powers, and federalism. The reference, made under Article 143 of the Constitution by President Droupadi Murmu in May 2025, asks whether the apex court can prescribe binding timelines for the President and state governors to act on bills passed by legislatures — a question that directly engages the core principles of constitutional discretion, executive inaction, and democratic accountability.

---

Background: The Presidential Reference

The case arose after the Supreme Court, in State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu on April 8, 2025, issued a ruling that fixed a one-month deadline for governors to act on re-enacted state bills and a three-month window for presidential assent. The judgment further invoked Article 142 to “deem” ten Tamil Nadu bills as having received presidential assent, despite no formal action by the Governor or President. This decision prompted significant controversy over whether courts could dictate timelines for actions that the Constitution assigns as discretionary to constitutional functionaries.

President Murmu, seeking clarity on the legal boundaries of such judicial interventions, referred 14 critical questions to the Supreme Court. These include:

• Can judicially imposed timelines fill gaps in Articles 200 and 201, which govern assent to state legislation?
• Are the assent functions of governors and the President subject to judicial review?
• Can Article 142 override explicit constitutional provisions to enforce such decisions?
• Is the “deemed assent” approach constitutionally sustainable?

The advisory is now being closely watched as it carries profound implications for Centre-state relations, governance, and democratic processes.

---

Key Arguments During Hearings

The hearings, which concluded on September 11 after ten days of extensive arguments, involved robust debate between the Union government, state representatives, and independent experts. The five-judge constitution bench presiding over the case comprises Chief Justice of India Bhushan R Gavai, and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha, and Atul S. Chandurkar.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the April 8 ruling “does not lay down the correct law” and should hold no precedential value. Mehta cautioned that judicially imposed timelines could provoke constitutional crises and disrupt the delicate balance between the legislature, executive, and judiciary. He asserted that discretionary functions, such as presidential or gubernatorial assent, are inherently structural safeguards, and mandating timelines would violate the separation of powers.

In response, Chief Justice Gavai posed a fundamental question: “If one wing of democracy fails in discharging its duties, would the court, which is the custodian of the Constitution, be powerless and sit idle?” This pointed to the tension between ensuring government accountability and respecting constitutional discretion.

Several state governments, including West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Punjab, Telangana, and Karnataka, opposed the Union’s stance. Senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, and Arvind Datar argued that prolonged inaction by governors and the President has concrete consequences for governance. They emphasized that Article 143, invoked in this reference, cannot be used to unsettle a binding judgment but can provide guidance on maintaining accountability.

Meanwhile, Attorney General R Venkataramani cautioned that the Court cannot “remodel” Article 200 or expand its scope to create what he termed an artificial procedural structure. Justice Surya Kant, however, noted a distinction between directing a governor to take a decision within a reasonable time and dictating the outcome of that decision.

---

Implications of the Verdict

This advisory opinion carries immense implications, though it is not binding in the strictest legal sense. Historically, advisory opinions under Article 143 serve as guiding instruments, shaping constitutional interpretation and political conduct. Since Independence, only 14 such references have been made, with the Court declining to answer only once — the 1993 Ayodhya reference — citing ongoing litigation and judicial propriety.

Key issues in the present reference include:

1. Judicial Review of Discretionary Powers – Whether actions of governors and the President under Articles 200 and 201 can be reviewed before a law takes effect.
2. Imposition of Timelines – Can courts enforce deadlines without interfering with constitutional discretion?
3. Article 361 Immunity – Does the constitutional immunity of the President and governors shield them from judicial direction?
4. Centre-State Dynamics – How will the advisory impact federal governance and the balance of power between the Union and states?
5. Use of Article 142 – Can this provision, which allows the Court to pass necessary directions to do complete justice, override explicit constitutional safeguards?

---

Precedents and Constitutional Context

The Court has historically exercised restraint in advisory references. In the Kerala Education Bill case (1957), it held that it cannot expand the scope of a reference beyond the questions posed. In the Cauvery River Water Dispute reference (1992), it reaffirmed that Article 143 cannot be invoked to revisit binding judicial decisions. While advisory opinions do not have the force of law, they typically carry substantial political and constitutional weight, influencing the conduct of governments and courts alike.

The Tamil Nadu case highlights a fundamental tension in the Indian constitutional design: while the legislature passes laws, governors and the President have discretionary powers to grant assent. Excessive judicial intervention could be seen as undermining executive autonomy, whereas prolonged executive inaction may impede democratic governance and citizen welfare.

---

Looking Ahead

The verdict is expected just days before CJI Bhushan R Gavai demits office on November 23, 2025, adding an element of historical significance to the judgment. Observers note that the ruling will influence not only Centre-state relationsbut also the broader understanding of judicial intervention in discretionary constitutional functions.

Experts suggest that the decision could serve as a template for managing similar constitutional questions in the future, particularly around deadlines for assent, reviewability of executive discretion, and the scope of Article 142 powers.

As India waits for the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion, the case underscores the ongoing balancing act inherent in a constitutional democracy: ensuring accountability and efficiency in governance while respecting the structural independence of each constitutional organ.

The verdict tomorrow is likely to set a precedent that could influence legislative-executive interactions, judicial oversight, and the practice of advisory references in the years to come.