What is the Presidential Reference case? Where did the controversy begin? The President asked these 14 questions.

The Supreme Court delivered its verdict on the Presidential Reference on Thursday. In the matter, President Draupadi Murmu had asked whether a constitutional court could set a time limit for the President and Governors to approve bills passed by state legislatures.

In fact, a Presidential Reference is established under Article 143 of the Indian Constitution. It is a special procedure under which the President has the right to seek advice from the Supreme Court on any legal or constitutional issue.

What is a Presidential Reference?

In simple terms, when the government has any doubts about a legal issue, a major public interest issue, or a dispute between the states and the central government, it resorts to a Presidential Reference. This simply means that the matter is referred to the Supreme Court, where it is considered, and the Court then submits its opinion to the President.

Since the government, under the Constitution, acts in the name of the President, the matter is first referred to the President. From here, the President, with his signature and seal, forwards the questions to the Supreme Court for consideration. This entire process is called a Presidential Reference.

What is Article 143?

Article 143 of the Indian Constitution states that the President has the power to seek the opinion of the Supreme Court on any question that is important to the country and involves law. This entire process is called a Presidential Reference.

At the same time, Article 143(2) of the Constitution empowers the President of India to refer certain disputes to the Supreme Court for consideration, which, as per the provisions of Article 131, do not fall within the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction.

The issue of Presidential References arises from the Tamil Nadu Governor Dispute

It is noteworthy that in April this year, the Supreme Court delivered an important decision in the case of the Tamil Nadu Government versus Governor R.N. Ravi. In its decision, the Court set a maximum period of three months for the President and Governors to approve bills passed by the House.

In this decision, a bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Mahadevan stated that when a Governor sends a bill for Presidential assent, the President must take a decision within three months from that date.

The President expressed concern over the decision.

Subsequently, the President expressed concern over the Supreme Court's decision, terming it a violation of constitutional limits, and sought the Supreme Court's advice on 14 questions, including whether Governors and the President can exercise their discretion to indefinitely withhold bills.

What are the President's 14 questions?

According to a TOI report, President Draupadi Murmu has asked the Supreme Court 14 questions using a Presidential Reference.

When a bill comes to the Governor for his assent under Article 200 of the Constitution, what constitutional options does he have?

Is the Governor required to seek the advice of the Council of Ministers?

Can decisions taken by the Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution be subject to judicial review?

Does Article 361 of the Constitution completely bar the Court from examining the Governor's decisions under Article 200?

If the Constitution does not specify the time and manner for the Governor to take decisions, can the Court, through its orders, determine the time limit and manner?

Can decisions taken by the President under Article 201 (which relate to bills sent by the Governor to the President) be judicially reviewed?

Can the Court, through its orders, determine the time limit and manner for the President to take decisions under Article 201?

When a bill is sent by the Governor to the President for assent, does the President have to seek the advice of the Supreme Court before taking a decision on it?

Can decisions taken by the Governor and the President under Articles 200 and 201 be reviewed when the bill has not yet become law? Can the court consider the content of a bill before it becomes law?

Under Article 142 of the Constitution, can the Supreme Court, by its order, usurp the constitutional powers of the President or Governor?

Can a bill passed by a state assembly be considered law without the Governor's assent?

Is it not mandatory for a Supreme Court bench to examine whether a matter involves a substantial question of constitutional interpretation and refer it to a bench of at least five judges, as provided in Article 145(3) of the Constitution?

Is Article 142 limited to procedural matters only, or can the Supreme Court also pass orders that are contrary to existing provisions of the Constitution (both content and procedure)?

Can the Supreme Court resolve disputes between the Centre and states through an original suit under Article 131, except through an original suit?