While some legal experts believe such a timeline can improve efficiency and prevent unnecessary delays, others believe that Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution allow interpretation as appropriate because they do not specify specific restrictions. Critics further question whether the Supreme Court’s extraordinary power under Article 142 can be used to impose a binding deadline on constitutional authorities.
Former Law Minister Ashwkumar described the reference as an important constitutional and political development involving the boundaries between the judiciary and the executive. He noted that the growing discourse expressed hope that the Constitutional judge would provide advisory advice to clarify the issue, following the Supreme Court’s decision. Kumar stressed the need to resolve the resolution to prevent obvious conflict between the judiciary and the executive, which could undermine governance.
Former additional Deputy Attorney General (ASG) and senior advocate Siddharth Luthra said the reference was intended to determine the extent to which the Supreme Court could guide the governor and president in its decisions. He raised basic questions about federalism and governance, asking whether constitutional authorities could refuse consent indefinitely and obstruct governance and deprive citizens of legislative rights.
Sumit Gehlot, a Fidelgore advocate and lawyer of constitutional experts, explained that under Article 143, the president could seek advice from the Supreme Court on legal or factual issues of public importance. Among state governors in Tamil Nadu (Tamil Nadu) the Supreme Court challenged the Tamil Nadu government’s delay in approving the state legislative bill, citing that there was no specific time frame in 200 and 201.
Gehlot stressed the key concerns whether the president can seek the Supreme Court’s opinion, but the implications of the court’s directives and whether it is necessary to guarantee the president’s intervention. He noted that Article 74 stipulates that the President takes action in the recommendations of the Council of Ministers, limiting independent decision-making bodies. Historically, the Supreme Court has issued directives such as a timely Mercy petition to make decisions. Gehlot further stressed that the court’s directive on April 8 set a three-month timeline based on recommendations from the Central Government, Sarkaria and Punchhi committees, and the anniversary of the administration, which was remembered for the anniversary. Complete the three-month limit on state bills. He argued that the president remains responsible and that uncertain delays in approving the bill are unreasonable. Ashish Dixit, a famous legal figure, said the president could seek the Supreme Court’s opinions on major legal and factual matters. The court may hold a hearing before it makes an opinion, which is binding on the president’s obligations without basis or legality. In the 2002 references, the court ruled that it could respond or respect.
Recent jurisprudence has brought the president and governor to limited judicial scrutiny in their official functions. The Supreme Court has ruled that the president cannot be a party to judicial proceedings. The current reference issued by the President deals with constitutional issues arising from the court’s ruling in the case of the governor of Tamil Nadu.
Senior advocates of Adish Aggarwala, former chairman of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), welcomed the presidential reference of Article 143, which sought advisory comments on the Supreme Court’s April 8 ruling. He noted that while Articles 200 and 201 do not specify a fixed schedule, they are usually agreed within a reasonable period depending on the circumstances. However, Aggarwala warned against the use of Article 142 to impose binding deadlines on constitutional authorities and cited a 1996 ruling, in which the Supreme Court noted that the application of Article 142 should remain flexible and uncertain.
