Understanding Presidential references under Article 143: Historical cases and Supreme Court's stance

President of India Droupadi Murmu in a rare development on Wednesday invoked Article 143(1) of the Constitution of India to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion on various questions pertaining to the powers of Governors and the President under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution..The reference has been made in the backdrop of the recent Supreme Court ruling that set timelines for Governors and the President to grant assent to bills passed by state legislatures. The verdict also introduced the concept of ‘deemed consent’ to counter gubernatorial inaction when it comes to the legislative bills.While the Central government could have sought a review of the contentious decision passed by a two-judge bench, the matter will now have to be heard by a Constitution Bench. .It is for the first time that President Murmu has sought the Supreme Court's opinion on a matter. This marks the only instance during Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government that the apex court has been consulted under Article 143(1) of the Constitution of India.Bar & Bench explains Article 143(1), the cases where it was last invoked and what the top court has opined about this unique law..Article 143(1) states that the President of India can seek the opinion of the Supreme Court on a question of law or fact that is of public importance. The Court is required to conduct a hearing on the reference made by the President and report its opinion to her..It is part of the Supreme Court's advisory jurisdiction, exclusively dedicated to the President of India..More than a dozen references have been made by Presidents since the framing of the Constitution.Dr Rajendra Prasad, Dr S Radhakrishnan, VV Giri, N Sanjiva Reddy, Giani Zail Singh, R Venkataraman, Shankar Dayal Sharma, KR Narayanan, APJ Abdul Kalam, Prathiba Patil and now Droupadi Murmu are the Presidents who have invoked Article 143(1) of the Constitution, In 1951, India’s first President Rajendra Prasad made the first reference to the Supreme Court in relation to provisions of Delhi Laws Act, 1912, the Ajmer-Merwara (Extension of Laws) Act, 1947 and Part C of the States (Laws) Act of 1950. The questions on which the opinion was sought related to delegation of legislative powers to the executive..In 1958, the Supreme Court answered a reference on certain provisions of Kerala Education Bill, 1957, particularly whether the provisions of the proposed law infringed upon the rights of minority institutions.In 1961, the Supreme Court had to answer another interesting reference related to implementation of an agreement made by India and Pakistan over transfer of a portion of Indian territory (Berubari Union) to then East Pakistan.In 1963, the Supreme Court answered a reference on the scope and interpretation of Article 289 of the Constitution, relating to the immunity of states from Union taxation. The reference pertained to the provisions of Sea Customs Act.The Supreme Court in 1964 answered another reference in relation to a reprimand issued to a Gorakhpur resident Keshav Singh by the Speaker of Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly for having committed contempt of the legislature and a breach of privileges of a member of the House. The question pertained to the intervention made by Allahabad High Court against Singh’s detention. In 1974, the Supreme Court even answered a reference on the process of election of the President.There have been references on validity of Special Courts Bill, 1978, which was enacted after the Emergency to prosecute political people accused of various offences during that period, the Karnataka Cauvery Basin Irrigation Protection Ordinance, 1991 and also the the appointment and transfer of judges (Second Judges Case). There was also a reference on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute before the Supreme Court in 1993. Between 2000 and 2025, there have been only five references – on the law governing assembly elections, Gujarat Gas Act, 2001, 2G spectrum allocation, Punjab Termination of Agreements Act and now, Governors' assent to bills..The Supreme Court in 2012, in the reference pertaining to the 2G case, discussed in detail Article 143 of the Constitution of India. One of the pertinent objections in the case was that the reference under Article 143(1) of the Constitution does not entail appellate or review jurisdiction. A similar question could arise in the Governor case.“If the present Reference is entertained, it would pave the way for the Executive to circumvent or negate the effect of inconvenient judgments, like the decision in the 2G Case, which would not only set a dangerous and unhealthy precedent,” Senior Advocate Soli Sorabjee had argued.Dealing with the arguments in 2G case, the Supreme Court said that it is essentially a matter for the President to decide whether the questions in a reference meet the prerequisites of Article 143(1). It further opined that the top court is not bound to render advisory opinion in every reference and may refuse to do so “for strong, compelling and good reasons”. The Court on the basis of earlier references also summarised that a reference should not be vague, general and undefined. “When the question becomes unspecific and incomprehensible, the risk of returning the reference unanswered arises,” it further said..On the question of maintainability of a reference that may be indirectly seeking a review of a judgment, the Court examined the answers given to the earlier references and said,“It is demonstrable that while entertaining the reference under Article 143(1), this Court had analysed the principles enunciated in the earlier judgment and also made certain modifications. The said modifications may be stated as one of the mode or method of inclusion by way of modification without changing the ratio decidendi. For the purpose of validity of a reference, suffice it to say, dwelling upon an earlier judgment is permissible. That apart, one cannot be oblivious of the fact that the scope of limited judicial review, in the Second Judges Case, which otherwise is quite restricted, was slightly expanded in the Court’s opinion to the Presidential reference.".It also noted that almost every reference has witnessed challenge to the maintainability but all have been answered, except the one on Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute. In conclusion, the Court stated it may refuse to address a reference if an authoritative ruling has already decided the questions raised by it.“From the aforesaid analysis, it is quite vivid that this Court would respectfully decline to answer a reference if it is improper, inadvisable and undesirable; or the questions formulated have purely socio-economic or political reasons, which have no relation whatsoever with any of the provisions of the Constitution or otherwise are of no constitutional significance; or are incapable of being answered; or would not subserve any purpose; or there is authoritative pronouncement of this Court which has already decided the question referred.”In the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal reference in 1991, the top court opined that when it pronounces its authoritative opinion on a question of law on the judicial side, “it cannot be said that there is any doubt about the question of law or the same is res integra so as to require the President to know what the true position of law on the question is.”