Judicial Timelines And Executive Assent: Analyzing The Supreme Court's Directive On Presidential Assent And The Invocation Of Article 143
- IJLLR Journal
- May 23
- 1 min read
Ankesh Mishra & Mridull Thaplu, Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University
ABSTRACT
In recent months, a landmark development has stirred public and legal debate in India’s constitutional landscape. On April 8, 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant judgment that directly addressed the persistent issue of delays by constitutional authorities—especially the President and Governors—in granting assent to state bills. Recognising the impact such delays can have on the functioning of state governments and democratic processes, the Court held that the President must decide on bills reserved under Article 201 of the Constitution within a reasonable time, specifically within three months.
What followed added a new dimension to the debate. In a rare constitutional move, President Droupadi Murmu invoked Article 143(1) of the Constitution, seeking the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion on whether the judiciary has the authority to fix such time limits for the President. This referral has raised important questions about the separation of powers, the independence of constitutional offices, and the balance between judicial directions and executive discretion.
This paper aims to explore the legal and constitutional implications of the Supreme Court’s judgment and the President’s response. It analyses the relevant provisions of the Constitution, examines past judicial pronouncements and expert commission recommendations, and considers the broader significance of this case for Indian federalism. Through this research, the paper argues that while ensuring efficiency and accountability in governance is essential, it must be carefully balanced with the principles of constitutional autonomy and institutional respect.
