Experts weigh in on President's move

The Supreme Court's April 8 judgment directing the President and Governors to act within a time-bound framework on bills passed by state legislatures has sparked an extraordinary constitutional moment. In a rare invocation of Article 143(1) of the Constitution, President Droupadi Murmu has sought the Court's advisory opinion on whether it is constitutionally permissible for the judiciary to prescribe such timelines?
The reference, made following advice of the council of ministers, questions whether the President's discretion under Article 201 is justiciable in the absence of explicit constitutional timelines.
The development has led to a flurry of reactions from constitutional experts, many of whom view the move as legally fraught and politically charged.
Justice PN Prakash, former judge of the Madras High Court, said, 'judgments exist which make it clear that a presidential reference cannot be used to challenge the correctness of a judgment already delivered.' He added that many of the questions raised in the reference, including the maintainability of timelines and the propriety of a two-judge bench deciding such a significant matter, had already been argued before the Supreme Court. 'This is not the President acting suo motu. She acts on the advice of the Council of Ministers,' he noted, underlining the political significance of the move.
Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan observed that while presidential references are not uncommon, the context of this one is unprecedented. 'Most earlier references, like on judicial appointments or the Hindu Code Bill, arose in a constitutional vacuum, not in reaction to an active judgment. Here, you are asking the very institution that passed the order to opine on its correctness, albeit indirectly,' he said. He also flagged concerns about the reference's timing, noting that it was sent on the same day that the new Chief Justice of India, Justice BR Gavai was sworn in. 'The timing was terrible.'
While the Supreme Court is not bound to answer every reference, as Article 143(1) uses the word 'may', the implications of this advisory opinion could be profound.
Alok Prasanna Kumar, lawyer and co-founder, Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, said, 'We've been here before,' referring to the 2011 Presidential Reference on the 2G spectrum case, when the government sought a clarification without contesting the judgment itself. However, Kumar stressed that this time, the stakes are higher.
'The court didn't just issue guidelines for the Governor (in its April 8 order). It went a step further and said a mandamus could be issued. That's a new constitutional frontier.'It also extended the same to the President.
The April 8 ruling, in State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu, came after an unprecedented standoff between the state government and Governor RN Ravi, who delayed assent to 12 bills, triggering a constitutional crisis. The Court, invoking Article 142, declared that the bills had become law and directed the Governor to act within a specific timeframe. It also set timelines for Governors and the President to deal with state bills.
While many welcomed the Court's effort to check gubernatorial overreach, the directive to the President raised eyebrows.
'Can the Court issue a writ of mandamus to the President, who is bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers?' Kumar asked. While the Court may only be directing the President to act, not prescribing how to act, this creates a novel constitutional arrangement.
Senior Advocate Arvind Datar said the reference was wholly unwarranted. 'Instead, they could have taken it in their stride and said okay, the Governor will give an assent in say three months or six months. Instead, they are treating it like an attack on the authority of the Governor of the President.'
The reference also has implications for the broader structure of Indian federalism.
Senior advocate Sidharth Luthra framed the issue in terms of the citizen's right to good governance. 'This is not just a tussle between institutions,' he argued. 'It's about whether a Governor or the President can paralyse governance by sitting indefinitely on legislation. That has real consequences for the rights of citizens, who elect governments to legislate and govern.'
Luthra's concerns echo a growing sentiment that the federal balance is under strain. Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar had earlier criticised the judiciary for acting like a 'super Parliament' and labelled Article 142, a provision that allows the Court to do 'complete justice,' as a 'nuclear missile' against democratic forces.
To be sure, none of this would have happened had Governors stuck to the spirit of the Constitution while dealing with state bills.
Justice Madan Lokur, former Supreme Court judge, offered a more tempered view on the reference. 'Legally, the President has every right to seek a reference if there is a need for clarity,' he said. But even he acknowledged the potential constitutional confusion that may arise if a five-judge bench offers an advisory opinion that contradicts the April 8 ruling by a two-judge bench.
In the end, this moment marks more than a legal contest, experts said. It is a reflection of deepening tensions between India's constitutional institutions. The judiciary, facing repeated instances of executive delay and intransigence, has stepped in forcefully. But in doing so, it may have opened the door to a new round of constitutional litigation over roles, powers, and the very architecture of Indian federalism.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Hindustan Times

an hour ago

• Hindustan Times

War Powers Act vs. Article II: Is the US bombing of Iran constitutional? Could Trump be impeached?

On Saturday night, President Donald Trump took to Truth Social to announce that the United States had conducted what he described as a 'very successful attack' on three Iranian nuclear facilities—Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan. Donald Trump said US had conducted 'successful attack' on three Iranian nuclear facilities.(AP) 'We have completed our very successful attack on the three Nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan. All planes are now outside of Iran air space. A full payload of BOMBS was dropped on the primary site, Fordow. All planes are safely on their way home," Trump wrote. "Congratulations to our great American Warriors. There is not another military in the World that could have done this. NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE! Thank you for your attention to this matter,' he added. The announcement reignited a constitutional debate, with critics pointing to a June 16 post on X by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who called such strikes unconstitutional. 'This is not our war. But if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our Constitution. I'm introducing a bipartisan War Powers Resolution to prohibit our involvement,' he had tweeted. Also Read: Iran Israel war news LIVE updates: US strikes on Iran a 'spectacular military success,' says Trump What Is the War Powers Act? Enacted in 1973 over President Richard Nixon's veto, the War Powers Resolution (WPR) was designed to limit the president's ability to engage US forces in military conflicts without congressional approval. It followed public outrage over Nixon's secret bombing of Cambodia during the Vietnam War, which resulted in significant civilian casualties and sparked widespread protests. The WPR requires the president to: Notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying U.S. forces into 'hostilities' or situations where hostilities are imminent. End military actions within 60 days (or 90 days in emergencies) unless Congress approves continued engagement through a declaration of war or specific authorization. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Rep. Massie have argued that Trump's strikes on Iran violate the WPR, as they were launched without congressional approval. What does Article II say? Trump's supporters, citing Article II of the Constitution, argue that as 'Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy,' the president has broad authority to direct military operations. 'The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment,' the article states. However, this power is constrained by Article I, Section 8, which grants Congress the authority to 'declare war' and regulate the armed forces Legal scholar John Yoo, speaking to Fox News Digital, defended Trump's actions. He argued that a limited airstrike does not constitute 'war' in the constitutional sense and thus doesn't require congressional approval. 'As a legal matter, the president doesn't need the permission of Congress to engage in hostilities abroad. But as a political matter, it's very important for the president to go to Congress and present the united front to our enemies,' he told Fox News Digital. Also Read: US bombs Iran: 10 key developments after strikes on nuclear sites Can Trump be impeached? Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution allows impeachment for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." If Congress determines that violating the WPR or bypassing its constitutional war powers constitutes a 'high crime,' impeachment could be pursued.

Hans India

an hour ago

• Hans India

Judicial reforms must if India aspires to become a global leader by 2047

As India prepares to celebrate 100 years of its independence in 2047, the nation stands at a critical juncture, one that calls not just for reflection, but for resolute reaffirmation of the foundational ideals enshrined in our Constitution, that is, equality, justice, fraternity, inclusivity, and liberty. However, if our intent, content, character, and commitment to these ideals are compromised, no vision, no matter how grand, can lead to genuine, sustainable progress. Lofty slogans, glittering events, and ambitious roadmaps may create temporary excitement, but without authentic adherence to our core democratic values, such displays are hollow. They amount to little more than hype, hoopla, and hypocrisy. India's journey from colonial rule to becoming the world's largest democracy is a powerful story of resilience and aspiration. Yet, as we look toward 2047, celebrating a century of freedom cannot simply be an act of commemoration. It must be a collective mission to realize the unfulfilled promises of independence. True development cannot be built on foundations where voices are silenced, inequalities deepen, or where institutions falter due to compromised ethics. A nation can only rise as high as the strength of its moral spine, and this strength is defined not by rhetoric, but by action rooted in fairness, truth, and unity. A troubling paradox persists but no one is bothered. Nearly 85 per cent of the population, comprising Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), Other Backward Classes (OBCs), and other economically disadvantaged communities, continues to grapple with entrenched socio-economic, educational, and political deprivation. Despite decades of constitutional safeguards and welfare policies, the journey toward equitable development remains riddled with systemic barriers and broken promises. SCs, STs, and OBCs, along with the rural and urban poor from other communities, overwhelmingly occupy the bottom rung of India's socio-economic pyramid. Their lives are often marked by landlessness, insecure livelihoods, wage exploitation, and poor access to health and nutrition. A significant proportion remains dependent on the informal sector, which offers neither security nor dignity. The intersection of caste and poverty further compounds the exclusion, as Dalits and Adivasis continue to face discrimination in accessing even the most basic services like housing, clean drinking water, and sanitation. Even within economic growth narratives, the benefits have remained concentrated among the upper-caste urban elite, with only marginal trickle-down effects. Wealth inequality has widened alarmingly, with the richest 10 per cent holding over 75 per cent of the country's wealth, while the poorest majority are denied the opportunity to break free from generational poverty. Education remains a powerful tool for emancipation but for the marginalized, it is often out of reach or poor in quality. Despite affirmative action policies such as reservations in educational institutions, dropout rates remain disproportionately high among SCs and STs, particularly at the secondary and higher levels. Majority of rural and government schools suffer from understaffing, poor infrastructure, caste bias, and language barriers, conditions that particularly disadvantage first-generation learners. Moreover, digital exclusion during the COVID-19 pandemic laid bare the inequalities in access to technology and online education. Students from marginalized families were left behind, deepening the already wide learning gap. While the Constitution provides for political reservation for SCs and STs in legislative bodies, real political empowerment remains elusive. In many instances, elected representatives from marginalized communities serve as mere figureheads, with actual decision-making controlled by dominant social groups. Tokenism and co-optation have replaced genuine inclusion, and grassroots participation in governance is minimal. Furthermore, policy-making continues to be shaped by upper-caste bureaucracies and think tanks, with limited representation of the lived experiences and voices of the deprived majority. Despite the rise of some regional political formations centered around OBC and Dalit identities, the larger structure of Indian politics remains steeply unequal and resistant to transformative change. India's democratic promise will remain incomplete unless it fundamentally addresses the historical and structural inequalities faced by its marginalized majority. This calls for redistributive justice, radical educational reform, and authentic political representation. True nation-building will require dismantling caste and class hierarchies, not just in words, but in practice, through inclusive growth, dignity for all, and a renewed commitment to constitutional morality. Our judiciary, often hailed as the guardian of democracy, is grappling with a crisis that threatens the very essence of justice—delay. The principle - justice delayed is justice denied – has never been more relevant, as over 5 crore cases are currently pending in Indian courts (National Judicial Data Grid, May 2025). Of these, more than 4.2 crore are pending in subordinate courts, 60 lakh in High Courts, and over 80,000 in the Supreme Court. Shockingly, more than 2.5 crore cases have been pending for over one year, and over 50 lakh for more than 10 years, reflecting a judicial system crippled by chronic delays. The average time to dispose of a civil case in India often stretches between 8 to 15 years, depending on the jurisdiction. One of the key causes is the severe shortage of judges. India has just 21.03 judges per million population as compared to 107 in the US and 51 in the UK (Law Commission of India, 2014, reaffirmed in 2023 by NITI Aayog). Additionally, frequent adjournments, outdated procedures, and inadequate court infrastructure compound the delays. This wait is not just a legal issue. It has deep human and economic costs. Victims languish without closure, undertrials rot in jails, and businesses suffer due to commercial disputes stuck in litigation for years. According to the Economic Survey 2018, judicial delays cost India up to 1.5 per cent of its GDP annually. If India aspires to be a global leader by 2047, judicial reforms must be treated as a national emergency. Justice cannot be a privilege for the few. It must be timely, transparent, and accessible for all. The idea of a free, fair, and equitable India in 2047 must be a lived reality for all. Let 2047 not just be a milestone in our history, but a testament to a conscious civilizational leap, a moment when India proves that its growth is as just as it is rapid, as inclusive as it is innovative, and as principled as it is powerful.

Hindustan Times

2 hours ago

• Hindustan Times

Polling station clips may breach privacy of voters, says EC

The Election Commission of India has revised its rules for accessibility of video footage recorded during polls, saying that such footage cannot be viewed by anyone except a court hearing an election petition as it could breach privacy of voters and raise security concerns. Polling station clips may breach privacy of voters, says EC Sharing the footage — recorded through CCTVS, webcast or videography — would enable easy identification of electors by any group or individual, and would leave them vulnerable to 'pressure, discrimination, and intimidation by anti-social elements', officials familiar with the matter said citing the EC's communication. In a circular dated June 18, the commission directed all states and Union territories that the revised rule will apply to elections notified after May 30, 2025. '[The videos] shall be produced in original before the High Court adjudicating an election petition on its order and shall not be opened and their contents shall not be inspected by, or produced before, any person or authority except the High Court adjudicating the Election Petition,' the commission said in the circular, which also contained previous communications pertaining to the preservation of video. HT has seen a copy of the circular. The changes have come in the backdrop of a demand by the Congress and other opposition parties to release post-5pm CCTV footage from polling booths in the 2024 Maharashtra assembly elections. In December last year, the government tweaked an election rule to prevent public inspection of certain electronic documents such as CCTV cameras and webcasting footage as well as video recordings of candidates to prevent their misuse. Based on the recommendation of the EC, the Union law ministry amended Rule 93 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, to restrict the type of papers or documents open to public inspection. The commission has also directed it officials to destroy such video footage after 45 days of declaration of results if the election verdict is not challenged in courts, a separate circular issued on May 30 and cited in the latest circular said. Since election results cannot be challenged beyond 45 days, retaining such footage beyond this period would make it susceptible to misuse for 'spreading misinformation and malicious narratives', an official familiar with the matter said. But in case an election petition is filed within the stipulated time of 45 days, the videos will not be destroyed and made available to the competent court, the official cited above said. Providing videos is akin to providing access to Form 17A (register of voters) — which contains information pertaining to the sequence in which electors enter a polling station, serial number of the elector in the electoral roll — under Rule 49L of the Conduct of Election Rules, the official said. 'Violation of secrecy of voting is a punishable offence under section 128 of RPA, 1951 [maintenance of secrecy of voting] with imprisonment for a term up to three months or fine or both. Thus, ECI is legally bound and committed to protect the privacy of the electors and secrecy of voting,' the official said requesting anonymity. A second official said that safeguarding the interests of its electors is 'of prime concern'. 'For the ECI safeguarding the interests of its electors and maintaining their privacy and secrecy is of prime concern, even if some of the political parties/ interest groups mount pressure on the Commission to abandon the laid down procedures or to ignore the security concerns of the electors. Maintaining privacy and secrecy of the elector is non-negotiable and the ECI has, never in the past, compromised on this essential tenet laid down in the law as well upheld by the Supreme Court,' the second official said, requesting anonymity. The move triggered a sharp reaction from Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi, who accused EC of 'deleting evidence' when it was required to 'provide answers'. 'Voter list? Will not give machine-readable format. CCTV footage? Hidden by changing the law. Election photos and videos? Now they will be deleted in 45 days, not 1 year. The one who was supposed to provide answers - is the one deleting the evidence,' Gandhi alleged in a post on X. 'It is clear that the match is fixed. And a fixed election is poison for democracy,' the Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha posted in Hindi. Gandhi has been demanding voter lists, poll data and video footage from the election commission, alleging irregularities in Maharashtra assembly elections. While the ECI did not respond to Gandhi's comments, a third official said: '[Opposition's remarks] suit their narrative in making the demand sound quite genuine and in the interest of voters and safeguarding the democratic process in the country, it is in fact aimed at achieving exactly the opposite objective. What is veiled as a very logical demand, is actually entirely contrary to the privacy and security concerns of the voters.' Earlier in the week, a purported video showing two people standing at the EVM in a polling booth during the Visavadar assembly bypoll in Gujarat — held on June 19 — emerged on social media, with EC launching a probe into how the video was leaked.