PRESIDENTIAL REFERENCE

The Supreme Court's advisory role, as outlined in Article 143, traces its origins to the Government of India Act of 1935. This act granted the Governor-General the authority to seek the opinion of the federal court on significant legal matters.

A comparable feature exists in the Canadian Constitution, where the Supreme Court of Canada is empowered to give advisory opinions on legal issues referred by either the federal or provincial governments. In contrast, the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently refused to issue advisory opinions to the executive branch, adhering strictly to the principle of separation of powers embedded in the American Constitution

3. Past instances

• Since 1950, approximately fifteen presidential references have been made to the Supreme Court, excluding the most recent one. Below are brief summaries of some notable opinions delivered by the Court in response to these references.
• The first such reference came in the Delhi Laws Act case (1951), where the Court outlined the concept of delegated legislation, allowing the legislature to delegate certain law-making powers to the executive for efficient law implementation.
• In the Kerala Education Bill case (1958), the Court established the principle of harmonious interpretation between Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles of State Policy, while also clarifying the constitutional safeguards for minority-run educational institutions under Article 30.
• In the Berubari Union case (1960), the Court held that any transfer or acquisition of Indian territory requires a constitutional amendment as per Article 368. The Keshav Singh case (1965) addressed the scope of legislative powers and privileges.
• In the Presidential Election case (1974), the Court ruled that elections for the President must proceed even if there are vacancies in the electoral college due to the dissolution of state assemblies.
• The Special Courts Bill reference (1978) was particularly important, as the Court clarified that it can choose not to respond to a reference, that the questions posed must be clear and precise, and that the judiciary must not intrude into Parliament's domain when giving its opinion.
• The Third Judges case (1998) resulted in a comprehensive set of guidelines shaping the collegium system for appointing judges to the higher judiciary.
• Although the Supreme Court is not bound to respond to every reference, it has declined to provide an opinion on only one occasion — in 1993, concerning the Ram Janmabhoomi dispute

 4. Current reference

• The current presidential reference stems from a recent Supreme Court ruling that established specific timelines for the President and State Governors to act on Bills passed by State legislatures.
• In that judgment, the Court also asserted that the decisions made by the President and Governors regarding such Bills are open to judicial scrutiny. This reference has posed 14 key questions, mainly focusing on the interpretation of Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution.
• The central government has raised concerns about whether courts can impose timelines when the Constitution itself does not prescribe any. It also questions whether the actions of the President and Governors, taken before a Bill becomes law, can be subjected to judicial review. Additionally, the reference seeks clarity on the scope of the Supreme Court’s powers under Article 142.
• This legal dispute has largely been driven by political tensions between the Union government and Opposition-led State governments. In its judgment, the Supreme Court had referred to the timelines mentioned in a Ministry of Home Affairs Office Memorandum concerning the President's assent to Bills.
• Notably, in the Cauvery dispute reference (1992), the Court had stated that, in an advisory capacity, it does not have the authority to review its previous rulings.
• Nevertheless, a definitive opinion in the present case is expected to bring clarity to important constitutional questions, thereby aiding in the effective functioning of federalism and democratic governance