Abstract

This research paper explores Article 143 of the Indian Constitution as a mechanism for resolving constitutional ambiguities, focusing on President Droupadi Murmu's May 2025 reference on bill assent timelines. Article 143 enables the President to seek the Supreme Court's non-binding advisory opinion on matters of public importance, offering a non-adversarial approach to clarify legal uncertainties. The paper examines this provision through the Tamil Nadu dispute. Governor R.N. Ravi's delays in assenting to 10 state bills led to the Supreme Court's ruling in the State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu in April 2025. Invoking Article 142, the Court deemed the bills assented and imposed a three-month timeline for Presidential action, sparking debates over judicial overreach. President Murmu's reference, with 14 questions, probes the constitutionality of these timelines, the concept of deemed assent, and gubernatorial discretion under Articles 200 and 201. The paper traces Article 143's historical roots to the Government of India Act, 1935, and its use in cases like In Re: Delhi Laws Act (1951), highlighting its role in addressing federal and legislative ambiguities. It analyzes the legal framework of Articles 200, 201, and 142, noting the absence of timelines as a source of conflict. Comparative insights from Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom emphasize constitutional conventions to streamline assent, suggesting reforms for India. While Article 143 fosters cooperative dialogue, its non-binding nature limits its impact. The paper recommends amending Articles 200 and 201 to codify timelines and establish conventions to enhance federal harmony and legislative efficiency in India's democracy.

Keywords