TV
In a significant development, President Droupadi Murmu invoked Article 143(1) of the Constitution to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion on whether courts can impose timelines on the President and Governors for granting assent to Bills passed by state legislatures.
The move follows the Supreme Court’s April 8, 2025, verdict in the Tamil Nadu Governor case, which set a three-month deadline for both the Governor and the President to act on such Bills, a decision that raised questions on judicial overreach and the separation of powers.
What Triggered the Dispute?
The Supreme Court bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan had ruled that Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi acted "illegally and arbitrarily" by reserving 10 Bills for the President’s assent after they were re-enacted by the legislature.
The court held that if the President failed to act within three months, states could approach the Court for a writ of mandamus. Exercising its plenary powers under Article 142, the Court deemed the 10 Bills as having received assent from the Governor.
The judgment sparked criticism from various quarters of the Executive. Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar and Kerala Governor Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar expressed concerns over the judiciary setting procedural rules for the executive branch.
ALSO READ: Meet Justice BR Gavai: First Buddhist Chief Justice of India; know key verdicts delivered by him
President’s Legal Concerns and Questions
President Murmu, in a detailed reference dated May 13, 2025, raised 14 key questions of constitutional significance and public importance. These include:
- Whether timelines can be judicially imposed for the President’s assent under Article 201 and the Governor’s options under Article 200.
- Whether the President or Governor is bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
- Whether their discretion is subject to judicial review, despite protections under Article 361, which shields them from court scrutiny for official acts.
- Whether the Supreme Court’s powers under Article 142 extend to issuing directions that override or contradict the Constitution or existing laws.
- Whether a state law can come into effect without the Governor’s formal assent.
- Whether courts can adjudicate on a Bill’s content before it becomes law.
- Whether disputes between the Union and states can be resolved through means other than a suit under Article 131.
- Whether any Supreme Court bench must refer matters involving substantial constitutional interpretation to a Constitution Bench under Article 145(3).
- The President’s reference asserts that both Article 200 (Governor's powers) and Article 201 (President's powers) provide no specific timeline or procedure for action.
She argued that the concept of “deemed assent” contradicts the Constitution’s structure and infringes upon the discretionary authority granted to the executive.
“Is the Governor bound by the aid and advice tendered by the Council of Ministers while exercising all the options available with him when a Bill is presented before him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?" President Murmu questioned the Apex Court.
Why Article 143 Matters?
Article 143(1) empowers the President to consult the Supreme Court on any question of law or fact of public importance.
While the Court’s opinion in such cases is advisory and not binding, it holds considerable constitutional weight. The President's move reflects the gravity of the legal and political implications of the April 8 verdict, particularly its impact on federalism, separation of powers, and executive discretion.
ALSO READ: Transparency in Judiciary: 30 Supreme Court Judges submitted their declaration of assets
Judicial vs Executive Turf
The April 8 verdict drew attention to the balance of power between the judiciary and the executive. While the Court emphasised judicial review and timely legislative processes, critics warned that it may intrude into executive prerogatives.
Notably, the Court had stated that the President must record reasons if refusing assent, and in cases of purely legal concerns, the executive should refer the matter to the Court under Article 143.
Yet, the President now questions whether courts can prescribe such procedural duties in the absence of explicit constitutional mandates.
What the Constitution Says:
- Article 200: Allows a Governor to grant assent, withhold it, or reserve a Bill for the President.
- Article 201: Details the President’s powers when a Bill is reserved.
Neither article specifies a timeframe for action.
- Article 361: Grants immunity to the President and Governors from court proceedings for acts done in their official capacity.
- Article 142: Empowers the Supreme Court to pass orders to do “complete justice,” but its scope in altering a constitutional procedure is now under question.
It is now for the Supreme Court, under newly appointed Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, to decide whether to refer the matter to a Constitution Bench. If it does, the outcome could redefine the roles of constitutional functionaries, clarify the scope of judicial powers under Article 142, and shape future federal relations in India.
With inputs from ANI
