A Defining Constitutional Moment- President's 14 Questions to the Supreme Court

As a student of law, one of the most intellectually fulfilling experiences is to witness the Constitution in action—not just as a document we read in classrooms, but as a living, breathing framework that shapes our institutions, guides public discourse, and safeguards democratic values. In this context, the recent move by the Hon’ble President of India to invoke Article 143 of the Constitution and seek the advisory opinion of the Supreme Court on 14 significant constitutional questions is a landmark development in our constitutional journey.

| President's 14 Questions to the Supreme Court |

The questions posed concern the interpretation and application of Articles 200 and 201, which relate to the Governor’s and President’s roles in the assent or reservation of Bills passed by State Legislatures. At first glance, these might appear to be technical or procedural provisions, but a deeper look reveals that they touch upon the core principles of federalism, separation of powers, constitutional accountability, and democratic governance.

These 14 questions raise profound concerns that strike at the heart of constitutional architecture. They seek clarity on the discretionary powers of the Governor, whether such discretion is justiciable, and whether the Council of Ministers' advice binds the Governor when a Bill is presented. The President also seeks to understand whether timelines can be judicially imposed on the exercise of such powers, given the absence of explicit time limits in the Constitution. Additionally, the reference queries the justiciability of presidential discretion under Article 201, and the overall constitutional status of a state law that remains pending without the Governor’s assent.

What is truly commendable about this development is not just the content of the questions, but the manner in which they have been raised. Instead of allowing these constitutional ambiguities to simmer unresolved or lead to political standoffs between the Union and States, the President has rightly chosen the path of legal and constitutional clarity. Invoking Article 143—an often underused but powerful constitutional mechanism—demonstrates a deep commitment to the rule of law and institutional dialogue.

This moment, I believe, is a celebration of the vibrancy of our Constitution. It reminds us that constitutionalism is not merely a theory but a practice—one that evolves through deliberation, judicial interpretation, and the collective will to uphold democratic ideals. The President’s decision is not only prudent but visionary, as it acknowledges that enduring constitutional governance requires clarity, consistency, and respect for institutional boundaries.

As a law student, I find this development particularly enriching. These questions take us beyond the text and into the terrain of constitutional morality, convention, and accountability. They urge us to think critically about issues like:

• Should a Governor be allowed to delay assent to a Bill indefinitely, thereby frustrating the will of an elected legislature?

• Is the discretionary power of constitutional authorities absolute, or is it subject to constitutional conventions and judicial oversight?

• What happens when a Bill remains in limbo—neither assented to nor rejected—what constitutional recourse exists?

• Can the courts intervene in such cases, or would that amount to overstepping the separation of powers?

In answering these questions, the Supreme Court will not only be interpreting specific provisions but will also be setting the tone for how constitutional functionaries must behave within a democratic framework. This is an opportunity to reinforce the idea that public power must always be exercised in good faith, in accordance with constitutional principles, and with due respect to democratic mandates.

Moreover, this moment also has pedagogical value. It invites all of us—students, academics, practitioners, and citizens—to revisit the structural design of the Constitution. It reminds us that the Constitution is not self-executing; its true strength lies in how we understand it, interpret it, and implement it. The Supreme Court’s forthcoming advisory opinion will likely become a landmark in constitutional jurisprudence, guiding future interactions between State legislatures and constitutional authorities like Governors and the President.

Personally, I feel a sense of pride and inspiration as a student of law. These are the kinds of developments that bring our academic learning into sharper focus. They encourage us to think beyond rote learning and engage with the Constitution as a living instrument—dynamic, resilient, and profoundly relevant to the governance of our country. In classrooms, we often debate theoretical questions about discretion, judicial review, and federalism. Today, these questions are being posed at the highest level of constitutional authority, with real implications for how our democracy functions.

In conclusion, this moment is not just a legal milestone—it is a constitutional conversation that India needs and deserves. It is an affirmation that no office is above accountability, that ambiguities in governance must be resolved through legal reasoning, and that our Constitution is strong enough to answer its own questions—through the very mechanisms it enshrines. I look forward with great anticipation to the Supreme Court’s opinion. No matter what direction it takes, it will undoubtedly deepen our understanding of constitutional processes and reaffirm the foundational principles on which our Republic stands.