New Delhi: The Union Government has approached the Supreme Court challenging its April 8 ruling, which suggested that the President must seek the Court’s opinion under Article 143 whenever a bill, reserved by a Governor, appears patently unconstitutional.
The petition, filed through Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, argues that the judgment undermines the President’s discretionary powers.
“Any constitutional proposition that there exists an expectation for the President to refer every reserved bill to the Supreme Court is contrary to the constitutional scheme,” the Centre submitted ahead of Tuesday’s hearing before a Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai.
On April 8, 2025, a two-judge Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan observed that whenever a Governor reserves a bill on grounds of unconstitutionality, prudence requires the President to seek judicial clarity from the apex court under Article 143, instead of relying solely on executive advice.
The Centre has now objected, asserting that the ruling encroaches upon the constitutional separation of powers.
The key grounds of the Challenge are – discretion Under Article 143, the President’s power to seek the Court’s opinion is discretionary. The Centre stressed that the judiciary cannot mandate how or when such discretion must be exercised.
These provisions deal with the assent of Governors and the President.
The Centre argued that constitutional debates occur in legislatures, assent decisions rest with the executive, and judicial review is available only once a bill becomes law.
The Centre contended that courts cannot scrutinise bills at the pre-legislative stage. Doing so would create a “continuing mandamus”, which the Constitution does not permit.
The Centre has also questioned the maintainability of the state government’s petition, arguing that Article 32 is available only to citizens for the enforcement of fundamental rights, not to state governments.
Inter-governmental disputes must be filed under Article 131 as an original suit, and a state cannot invoke Article 32 against its own Governor.
The dispute now raises a fundamental issue, should the President’s discretion under Article 143 remain absolute, guided only by executive advice?
Or should there be a “constitutional expectation” to seek the judiciary’s opinion on potentially unconstitutional bills?
The Centre maintains that judicial oversight at the stage of assent undermines both the executive and legislative domains, while the earlier Bench had stressed that questions of constitutionality are best decided by the Supreme Court itself.
Meanwhile, it was reported that CJI B.R. Gavai called on President Droupadi Murmu at Rashtrapati Bhawan, in the evening.
UNI
Regional Passport Office Srinagar Bags Best Passport Office Award
Srinagar, Jun 20 (JKNS): The Regional Passport Office (RPO), Srinagar, has been adjudged as the Best Passport Office for the...
Read more
