Answer One .. Hon’ble supreme court is not bound to answer for presidential reference..all law students must know No.2. The opinion of the Hon’ble supreme court is not binding the Hon’ble president because the word coined is “he may refer the question to the court” Used” May”than why should we have article 143 is it for joy

[07/09, 16:38] Sekarreporter: Two specific questions answered by eminent judge justice chandru

Whether he is sitting or retired is not the matter,

his wisdom must be respected and cherished

Answer One .. Hon’ble supreme court is not bound to answer for presidential reference..all law students must know

No.2. The opinion of the Hon’ble supreme court is not binding the Hon’ble president because the word coined is “he may refer the question to the court”

Used” May”than why should we have article
143 is it for joy
[07/09, 16:47] Sekarreporter: +
+
+

Home NewsChennai
Prez reference: Will apex court answer Droupadi Murmu?
An opinion given by the Supreme Court is legally not binding on the President, and does not hold a precedential value; the court can also refuse to give any advice, which it has done several times before
Justice (Retd) K Chandru
4 Jun 2025 6:30 AM
  ( Updated:4 Jun 2025 6:30 AM  )

Retired MHC justice K Chandru

CHENNAI: It has been over a month since President Droupadi Murmu asked for an advisory opinion from the Supreme Court, sending 14 queries revolving around the discretionary powers bestowed on the President and the Governor under the Constitution. When we say the President is seeking an opinion, it is the opinion sought by the cabinet headed by Prime Minister Modi. Under Article 74, the President cannot act without the aid and advice of the Central cabinet headed by the Prime Minister. There used to be a time when one understood that the President had certain discretion in discharging his/her duties. However, the 42nd Amendment of the Constitution has put a seal on any such discretion, and the President merely acts like a post office.

Then the question will be why the central cabinet wanted opinion from the Supreme Court on matters of the discharging duties of the President and Governors from the Supreme Court. Naturally, one will ask why the central cabinet needs a legal opinion when it has a battery of legal advisors and a well-established law ministry under its control. The Attorney General of India, who holds the constitutional office under Article 76, has his duty to advise the President and the government.

After the judgment rendered in the case filed by Tamil Nadu, a two-judge bench headed by Justice Pardiwala in no-nonsense terms said neither the Governor nor the President can withhold any Bill without giving assent eternally and put a three-month time limit to decide the question of giving assent to a Bill sent by a state legislative assembly under Article 200 and 201 of the Constitution. Not stopping with its legislative fiat, having found Governor Ravi had unreasonably delayed giving the assent for more than a year without any explanation, the Supreme Court, exercising its extraordinary power conferred under Article 142, gave the assent itself.

Such a move by the Supreme Court might have sent shockwaves to those holding gubernatorial posts, thinking they were wielding unchecked powers and there was no one to question them. Little do they realise that there is something like the Constitution, which is the rule book for exercising powers by persons in authority. It is not as if the Constitution did not talk about any time limit for giving assent to the Bills sent by the State legislature. On the other hand, the legislature represents the will of the people through its elected legislators, and the executive head of the state, like the Governor, cannot treat the legislature as a subordinate authority. The proviso to Article 200 mandates that when the Bill is sent for assent by the Governor, he must “as soon as possible” either return the Bill with a message requesting the legislature to reconsider and in case the House returns the Bill with or without change, he shall give the assent.

While granting assent for any Bill, the Governor or the President does not exercise the power of an umpire but only acts as an authentication authority. Over a period, the Governors sent by the Home Ministry have started acting in a manner not conducive to the smooth functioning of the State; on the other hand, they play the role of an opposition party, destabilising the elected state governments. This political game involved granting delayed assent or acting without the aid and advice of the state cabinet headed by the Chief Minister.

It is not as if the law passed by the State legislature will have the last word on the issue. Any citizen at any point in time can even institute a suit in the smallest civil court challenging the constitutional validity of such a law. There is no time limit for such a challenge, and whenever a citizen