UPSC DAW Mains Answer Writing 2025 17th September

UPSC DAW Mains Answer Writing 2025 17th September

Question

In light of the recent Presidential Reference on Governors’ discretion in assent to State Bills, critically examine the utility of Article 143 in addressing disputes arising from constitutional silences. (10 marks, 150 words) 

Model Answer

Introduction:  

  • The Indian Constitution envisages a delicate balance between Union and State powers, with the Governor as a constitutional link. Recent disputes, including the Presidential Reference  following the Supreme Court’s April 2025 judgment, highlight issues of constitutional silence in Articles 200-201 regarding timelines for Governors to act on State Bills. Here, Article 143 empowers the President to seek the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion on questions of law or fact of public importance. 

 Utility of Article 143 in Addressing Constitutional Silences: 

  • Constitutional Interpretation Tool: 

  • Provides clarity where the Constitution is silent, E.g., Governors’ discretion in assent under Articles 200-201. 

  • Pre-emptive Dispute Redressal: 

  • Allows resolution before escalation into Centre–State confrontations. 

  • Avoids prolonged litigation by offering a constitutional interpretation mechanism. 

  • Preserving Democratic Functioning: 

  • In April 2025, the Supreme Court held that Governors cannot withhold assent to State Bills indefinitely.  

  • The ongoing Presidential Reference has reopened related constitutional questions, but the Court has clarified during hearings (September 2025) that it will confine itself to the specific questions referred and not revisit the April ruling. 

  • Ensuring Federal Balance: 

  • Prevents misuse of gubernatorial office to stall States’ legislation, as allegations have been raised, including by counsel for some States, that Opposition-ruled States face more frequent delays. 

 Limitations of Article 143: 

  • Advisory, Not Binding: 

  • Advisory opinions under Article 143 are advisory in nature, while they carry high persuasive authority, they are distinct from binding precedent under Article 141.  

  • The Court itself has distinguished advisory opinions from review/curative jurisdiction, which remain the proper routes to revisit a final judgment. 

  • Possibility of Political Use: 

  • Advisory references may be used by the executive to re-litigate settled questions, affecting judicial independence. 

  • Selective Application: 

  • Presidential References are rare and depend on the political will of the Union government and they are not a consistent redressal mechanism. 

 Strengthening Federal Balance Beyond Article 143: 

  • Judicial Interventions: 

  • In Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974), SC said that Governor bound by aid and advice of Council of Ministers. 

  • While in Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker (2016), SC mentioned that Governor’s discretionary powers are limited. 

  • Parliamentary and Institutional Reforms: 

  • Sarkaria Commission (1988) and Punchhi Commission (2010) both recommended codifying Governors’ powers and limiting discretionary interventions. 

  • Establish clear statutory timelines for Governor’s assent to prevent misuse of constitutional silence. 

  • Strengthening Cooperative Federalism: 

  • As per 7th Schedule, legislative competence must be respected where Governors’ role should remain facilitative, not obstructive. 

  • NITI Aayog’s emphasis on Team India approach reinforces federal trust-building mechanisms. 

 Conclusion:  

  • Article 143 provides an important but limited mechanism to clarify constitutional ambiguities and maintain Union–State harmony. The April 2025 judgment has reinforced constitutional boundaries, and the Presidential Reference proceedings are testing how far Article 143 can clarify such issues without disturbing settled law. Article 143 should serve as a constitutional safety valve, not a substitute for binding adjudication.