The Presidential Reference mechanism in India, under Article 143 of the Constitution, allows the President of India to seek the opinion of the Supreme Court on questions of law or fact of public importance. This constitutional provision has often been used by governments—regardless of party—to navigate politically sensitive or constitutionally ambiguous matters.

The latest instance involves President Droupadi Murmu seeking clarity from the Supreme Court on whether it can impose timelines on the President and Governors for action on state Bills—a politically charged question with broader implications for federalism and legislative power.

While this move has drawn criticism from opposition parties like the DMK and Left, it's far from unprecedented. Over the decades, both Congress and BJP governments have invoked Presidential Reference to either resolve complicated legal issues, delay political decisions, or add legitimacy to contentious government actions. Below are some landmark instances where this powerful constitutional tool was used:

1. Cauvery Water Dispute – 1991

One of the earliest significant uses of Presidential Reference came in July 1991, during the Cauvery river water sharing dispute between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka.

At the time:

• The Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal directed Karnataka to release 205 tmcft of water to Tamil Nadu.

• Karnataka, led by Congress Chief Minister S Bangarappa, responded by passing an Ordinance to override the tribunal's order.

This prompted the Congress-led Central government to make a Presidential Reference asking:

• Whether Karnataka's ordinance was constitutional.

• Whether the tribunal's interim order had the status of a legal decision.

The Supreme Court ruled that:

• Karnataka’s law was ultra vires the Constitution.

• The tribunal’s interim order was valid and enforceable.

• The tribunal could grant interim relief, provided it came via a Central government reference.

This case not only reinforced the tribunal’s authority but also clarified the Centre’s supremacy in inter-state water disputes.

2. Ayodhya Dispute – 1992

After the Babri Masjid demolition in December 1992, the Congress government under P V Narasimha Rao made a controversial Presidential Reference.

Through the Ayodhya Acquisition Ordinance, the Centre acquired 67.703 acres of disputed land and asked the Supreme Court whether a Hindu temple existed before the Babri Masjid on the site.

The Court responded by:

• Refusing to answer the question.

• Declaring the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act unconstitutional.

• Stating that the Reference was biased and violated the secular fabric of the Constitution.

This verdict is notable for the Court’s firm refusal to be drawn into a religious-political conflict, marking a significant assertion of judicial independence.

3. Gujarat Gas Act – 2001

Under the BJP-led government in Gujarat and at the Centre, a Presidential Reference was made on the Gujarat Gas (Regulation of Transmission, Supply and Distribution) Act.

Questions raised:

• Whether natural gas and LNG fall under the Union List.

• Whether state governments could regulate gas supply.

The Supreme Court ruled that:

• Natural gas is a Union subject.

• States had no legislative competence to enact such laws.

This clarified the limits of state autonomy in matters involving natural resources governed by the Union.

4. Gujarat Elections Post-Riots – 2002

Following the Gujarat riots, the Narendra Modi government sought early elections. Although the Assembly was dissolved in July 2002, the Election Commission (EC) postponed elections beyond the six-month deadline.

The President, on the Centre’s advice, asked the Court:

• Whether Article 174, requiring legislative sessions within six months, applied to dissolved assemblies.

• Whether EC’s powers under Article 324 allowed such postponement.

The Supreme Court upheld the EC’s authority, stating:

• Article 174 applied only to existing assemblies, not dissolved ones.

• EC had the exclusive power to schedule elections.

Within hours of the verdict, elections were announced for December 12, 2002. This case underscored the independence of the Election Commission and defined constitutional boundaries post-Assembly dissolution.

5. 2G Spectrum Case – 2012

In April 2012, the UPA government approached the Supreme Court after it cancelled 122 telecom licences in the 2G spectrum scandal.

The main question:

• Whether auctions were the only valid method for disposing of natural resources.

The Supreme Court clarified:

• Auction is not a constitutional mandate.

• The method of allocation is a matter of economic policy for the Executive.

The Court refused to enforce a one-size-fits-all approach, affirming that resource allocation can be done through methods other than auctions, as long as transparency and fairness are ensured.

Current Context: Bills Pending with Governors/President – 2024-25

In the current instance, the President has asked the Court to clarify:

• Whether it can fix a timeline for the President and Governors to act on state Assembly Bills.

This stems from concerns raised by states like Tamil Nadu and Kerala, where Bills remain pending with Governors for extended periods, potentially affecting governance.

The move has triggered a political backlash, with DMK’s M K Stalin and other opposition leaders criticizing the Modi government for undermining federalism.

If the Supreme Court provides timelines, it would tighten accountability on constitutional authorities like Governors and the President—possibly reshaping Centre-State relations.

The Upcoming IPOs in this week and coming weeks are Victory Electric Vehicles International, Borana Weaves, Dar Credit and Capital,Belrise Industries, Wagons Learning.

The Current active IPO are Accretion Pharmaceuticals.

Start your Stock Market Journey and Apply in IPO by Opening Free Demat Account in Choice Broking FinX.

Join our Trading with CA Abhay Telegram Channel for regular Stock Market Trading and Investment Calls by CA Abhay Varn - SEBI Registered Research Analyst