In an extraordinary move that has the scope to reshape the contours of the Indian Constitution, the President of India has invoked a rarely used power under Article 143 to refer a legal question to the Supreme Court.
The question? The very scope and legitimacy of the Supreme Court’s extraordinary powers under Article 142. At its heart, this momentous referral has placed two of the republic’s most powerful constitutional authorities—the President and the Supreme Court—on a potential collision course.
The reference from the Rashtrapati Bhawan para-dropped close to a month after the Supreme Court ruled that the President must decide on bills referred by Governors within three months.
This landmark decision came after the court overturned the Tamil Nadu Governor’s decision to withhold approval for pending bills. The court ruled that Governors cannot indefinitely delay assent to Bills passed by the state legislature. Such inaction amounts to a ‘pocket veto’, a concept alien to the Indian constitutional system.
“Bills can be reserved for the President only in specific circumstances (e.g., when required by Articles like 254(2), 31A, etc.). It cannot be used as a tool to block legislation falling within the State’s domain,” the bench, comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, had said in the verdict dated April 8, 2025.
President Droupadi Murmu’s reference in a way challenges the alleged judicial activism of the apex court, particularly questioning the reach and limits of its power to “do complete justice”.
Article 142 has often been described as a judicial wild card—a provision invoked to bridge legal gaps, deliver equitable outcomes, and, at times, sidestep the legislature.
The invocation of the advisory jurisdiction by the President of India appears to seek clarity on the scope and extent of the extraordinary jurisdiction of the apex court.
However, the said reference, if looked at from a wider lens, appears to be much more than unusual since an extraordinary constitutional power is being used to challenge another i.e. Article 143, which empowers the President to seek the advisory opinion of the Supreme Court on questions of public importance, but is a rarely used tool.
When Was This Extraordinary Measure Last Used By A President?
The last time this jurisdiction was invoked was in 2016, when then-President Pranab Mukherjee sought the court’s opinion on whether the government could bypass the Rajya Sabha to enact the Goods and Services Tax (GST) by treating it as a Money Bill.
On April 12, 2012, the then President Pratibha M Patil used it in connection with the 2G spectrum allocation, asking eight questions. These included judicial interference in policy matters and whether auction as the only method that can be used to allocate natural resources.
Potential Impact Of President Murmu’s Move
President Murmu’s current reference invoking the advisory jurisdiction is more than just a legal query—it is a moment of reckoning for the basic structure doctrine itself.
Speaking to News18, senior advocate Siddharth Luthra said, “This reference to my mind is to determine what is the way going forward, to what extent the Supreme Court will direct Governors and Presidents to act, to what extent will they determine and sit over jurisdictions of Governors and Presidents.”
Senior advocate Sanjay Hedge, meanwhile, said, “Reference is not a review. Presidential reference is a question to court in its advisory jurisdiction. Supreme Court had clarified its advisory jurisdiction is recommendatory and not binding.”
“Judgment of court is a verdict of court, it can be overcome only through process known to law which is an adjudicatory process. This is an opinion; it cannot directly override a judgment,” he added.
The apex court, for the longest time, has asserted that certain foundational principles—like judicial independence, federalism, and the separation of powers—are inviolable.
But what happens when one branch of the state formally challenges the interpretive supremacy of another? Either way, this referral may end up becoming a game-changer. At stake is not just the reach of Article 142 but the very idea of checks and balances that anchors the Constitution.
A potential outcome that could emerge from this reference could either curtail the judiciary’s ability to mould justice to fit complex, real-world situations or could decisively fortify its role as the guardian of constitutional morality.
In initiating this unprecedented move, the President has done more than just ask a question. She has sparked a constitutional confrontation, one that will shape the institutional future of Indian democracy.
