Issues related to federalism raised under Presidential reference: Sidharth Luthra

IANS May 15, 2025 176 views

Sidharth Luthra, a former Additional Solicitor General, addressed concerns over federalism following President Droupadi Murmu's reference related to the Tamil Nadu Bills case. He emphasized how the potential for Governors to delay bills challenges citizens' right to governance, sparking a constitutional debate. The reference under Article 143 calls for clarity on executive powers, especially those of the Governor and President. Luthra also highlighted the significance of the Supreme Court's advisory role under Article 142 in shaping governance moving forward.

"Can the authorities stop the right of a citizen to good governance?" - Sidharth Luthra
New Delhi, May 15: Former Additional Solicitor General Sidharth Luthra on Thursday said the reference made by President Droupadi Murmu, in the aftermath of the Tamil Nadu Bills case, raises critical issues related to federalism.

Key Points

1

Luthra questions Governor's role in legislation stalling

2

Raises federalism and citizen's right to governance

3

Presidential reference scrutinizes Articles 142 and 143

The Presidential reference made under Article 143 of the Constitution has thrown up the question: Can a Governor or the President sit over a legislation, and can it render governance null and void? said Luthra.

"The issue here is not just about the powers of the President, the Governor, the Centre and the State. It's a federalism issue," he said.

The constitutional expert said the question that needs to be answered is: Can the authorities stop the right of a citizen to good governance?

There's also the issue of how we are going to deal with the rights of the citizens to have governance. "After all, citizens elect their representative, MPs and the party in power. The citizen expects governance from them. A part of governance is the making of laws, and if a Governor sits over a bill, are we not denying citizens of governance?" he said.

Luthra said the principle of separation of powers and the scope of the Supreme Court's power under Article 142 are the other key issues that the Constitution Bench will now have to decide under President Murmu's reference that has invoked the top court's advisory jurisdiction.

Pointing to a similar reference made after the 2G spectrum auction, Luthra said, "The current reference is not covered by the opinion given by the SC under its advisory jurisdiction in the previous case."

After the 2G airwave allocation was struck down by the SC, the government at that time, under reference, had sought the top court's views on the way forward and get a sense about the powers of the Centre, he said.

Luthra said the current reference made by the President is significant due to the underlined issues that it raises.

"Please don't just look at the questions that have been raised, but the underlined issues raised. The scope of the powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142 has also been raised," he said.

"This reference, to my mind, is to determine what the way is going forward and to what extent the Supreme Court directs governments, Governors and the President to act and to the extent that they will determine and sit over the jurisdiction of Governors and the President," he said.

The constitution expert said, "Do keep in mind that the decisions of Governors and the President, in the context of remission, have already been made justiciable on very narrow parameters."

Article 142 of the Constitution grants the Supreme Court the power to pass any order necessary for doing complete justice in any case or matter pending before it.

In the aftermath of the Supreme Court verdict in the Tamil Nadu Bills case, President Murmu, in a reference made under Article 143 of the Constitution, has asked the top court to consider whether timelines can be imposed on Governors to act on Bills in the absence of a constitutionally prescribed time limit.

Reader Comments

R
Rajesh K.
This is a much-needed discussion! Governors sitting on bills for months is against the spirit of cooperative federalism. If states have passed legislation democratically, there should be reasonable timelines for approval. Our Constitution needs to evolve with times.
P
Priya M.
While I agree governance shouldn't be stalled, we must be careful not to dilute constitutional checks and balances. The Governor's role as a bridge between Centre and State is important in our federal structure. Maybe a 60-day limit would be reasonable? 🤔
A
Amit S.
This Tamil Nadu case shows how political parties use Governors as pawns when they're in power at Centre. Same party complains when they're in opposition! We need consistent principles, not political convenience. Kudos to President Murmu for raising this important issue.
S
Sunita R.
As someone from a small state, I worry about over-centralization. If SC imposes strict timelines, it should apply equally to all states - not just opposition-ruled ones. Federalism works both ways - states must respect Centre's concerns too.
V
Vikram J.
Interesting legal debate, but how does this help common man? While lawyers discuss Article 142/143, people suffer due to delayed welfare schemes. Maybe we need a constitutional amendment to make Governor's role more transparent and time-bound. Jai Hind!
N
Neha T.
Respectfully disagree with Luthra ji on one point - SC shouldn't become super-administrator. If we start fixing timelines for every constitutional function, where does it end? The solution lies in political consensus, not judicial overreach. Our founding fathers designed these checks deliberately.

We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.

Leave a Comment

Your email won't be published


Disclaimer: Comments here reflect the author's views alone. Insulting or using offensive language against individuals, communities, religion, or the nation is illegal.

Tags: