The Indian government has asserted that the President of India possesses the sole discretion to decide when and on what issues to seek the Supreme Court's opinion. This stance comes in response to a prior Supreme Court judgment that suggested the President should consult the apex court on the constitutionality of bills. The Centre argues that the judiciary cannot dictate to the President how to exercise this power under Article 143.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union government, stated that Article 143 grants the President "absolute discretion" in seeking advice. The government's submission emphasizes that the term "consult" implies that the President is not obligated to follow the advice.
The disagreement stems from an April 8 judgment where a Supreme Court bench advised that the President should refer bills reserved by a Governor for her consideration (due to potential unconstitutionality) to the Supreme Court under Article 143. The Centre strongly opposes this proposition, arguing that it contradicts the constitutional scheme. They maintain that Articles 200 and 201 empower the President to independently decide whether to assent to or withhold assent from a bill, without any stipulated role for the Supreme Court.
Furthermore, the Centre contends that the proposition that only the judiciary can decide constitutional questions is flawed. They assert that the Constitution envisions the legislature, executive, and judiciary as each being competent to interpret the Constitution within their respective domains.
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments on this Presidential Reference, starting August 19, 2025. A five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai will preside over the proceedings. The court has set a timeline for the hearing, with preliminary objections from states like Kerala and Tamil Nadu to be heard first. The Centre and states supporting the Presidential Reference will present their arguments subsequently, followed by those opposing it.
Kerala has argued that the Centre should not have advised the President to issue a Presidential Reference, as the questions raised were already comprehensively addressed in the April 8 judgment. Kerala also pointed out that the Union government did not file any review petition against the April 8 judgement. The state contends that disagreement from the Council of Ministers is not a valid basis for invoking Article 143.
The Centre, however, has warned against imposing fixed timelines on Governors and the President for acting on bills passed by a state assembly. They argue that such constraints would lead to "constitutional disorder" by allowing one branch of government to assume powers not granted to it by the Constitution. The Centre maintains that Articles 200 and 201 intentionally omit any time limits.
The Supreme Court's April ruling had prescribed a three-month deadline for the President and a one-month deadline for Governors to decide on bills. The Centre argues that these timelines violate the separation of powers and the intent of the Constitution. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that even under its extraordinary powers vested in Article 142, the Supreme Court cannot amend the Constitution or defeat the intent of the Constitution makers, provided there are no such procedural mandates in the constitutional text.
The outcome of this legal battle is expected to significantly impact the relationship between the Centre and the states, particularly concerning legislative matters.
