A Glimpse Into 75 Years of Presidential References to the Supreme Court
The recent Presidential reference to the Supreme Court (SC) regarding the deadlines for the President and Governors in clearing state bills has sparked significant political debate. Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin has been vocal in his opposition, announcing plans to discuss the issue with fellow state leaders to form a united front against such references.
President Droupadi Murmu, under the powers granted by Article 143(1) of the Indian Constitution, has sought clarity from the Supreme Court on whether judicial orders could impose timelines on the President and Governors for clearing state bills. While Presidential references to the SC are rare, there have been at least 15 instances in the past 75 years where such references were made, each impacting crucial constitutional matters.
The last Presidential reference took place in 2016, when then-President Pranab Mukherjee sought the SC’s opinion on the imposition of President's Rule in Uttarakhand. Other instances have involved questions about the constitutionality of laws, bills presented for Presidential assent, inter-state water disputes, and the interpretation of constitutional provisions related to the election of the President.
Although advisory opinions from the Supreme Court under Article 143 are not legally binding, they carry considerable weight in shaping the political and legal landscape of the country.
Among the references made to the SC, three are notably connected to Tamil Nadu’s political history. Two were directly related to Tamil Nadu, while one was referenced to reaffirm the demand for the retrieval of Katchatheevu Island from Sri Lanka.
In 1959, the President referred to the SC over the ceding of Berubari Union to Pakistan as part of an agreement signed between then-Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Pakistani PM Feroz Khan Noon. The Supreme Court’s advisory opinion led to the decision that Berubari would remain an integral part of India, with the matter ultimately being resolved without ceding the territory.
In 2008, former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J. Jayalalithaa invoked the Berubari precedent in her writ petition challenging the constitutionality of the 1974 and 1976 agreements that ceded Katchatheevu Island to Sri Lanka. She argued that such a transfer of Indian territory required a constitutional amendment under Article 368, a stance that continues to be debated in the SC after more than 16 years.
In 1991, President R. Venkataraman referred the Cauvery water dispute to the SC, triggered by Karnataka’s violation of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal’s interim order with the introduction of the Karnataka Cauvery Basin Irrigation Protection Ordinance. The SC declared the ordinance unconstitutional, reinforcing Tamil Nadu’s legal position on the issue.
Another significant reference occurred in 2012, when President Pratibha Patil sought the SC’s opinion on the 2G spectrum case, which had resulted in the cancellation of 122 licences and mandated auctions. The five-judge bench ruled that while auctions were not constitutionally mandatory, the directive in the 2G case was specific to the flawed policy in question.
In 1994, President Shankar Dayal Sharma had sought the SC’s opinion on whether a Hindu temple or any religious structure existed at the site of the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid. The SC declined to address the issue, setting a precedent for the Court's reluctance to intervene in religious matters.
The most recent reference, made by President Murmu, follows the Supreme Court’s April 8 verdict concerning the governor's powers in relation to state bills challenged by the Tamil Nadu government. This reference has brought the spotlight back to the evolving role of the President and Governors in legislative matters and their relationship with the judiciary.
As Tamil Nadu's Chief Minister MK Stalin opposes these developments, it remains to be seen how these legal and political maneuvers will shape the future of governance and federal relations in India.