In a historic and unprecedented constitutional development, President Droupadi Murmu has invoked Article 143(1) of the Constitution to seek the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion on the powers and limits of Governors and the President in dealing with state legislation — a move that could redefine federal governance in India.
The reference to the apex court follows the Supreme Court’s April 8 ruling in the Tamil Nadu Governor vs State Government case, which set time-bound deadlines for constitutional authorities like Governors and the President to act on state Bills — a direction the President believes is not grounded in the Constitution.
In her communication to the Supreme Court, President Murmu raised concerns that the ruling may have overstepped the constitutional boundaries by prescribing a “deemed assent” if no action is taken on a Bill within a certain timeframe. She noted that, “Neither Article 200 nor Article 201 prescribes any time limit or procedural mechanism for granting or withholding assent.” Article 200 governs the Governor's powers on state Bills, while Article 201 deals with the President’s role in legislation reserved by Governors.
The President has referred 14 constitutional questions to the Supreme Court, questioning the legitimacy of judicially imposed deadlines, the justiciability of gubernatorial discretion, and the court’s use of Article 142 — which allows it to ensure “complete justice” — to interpret legislative silence as a vacuum to be judicially filled.
Criticising what she sees as a potential breach of the separation of powers, President Murmu’s reference also takes issue with courts overriding or substituting decisions of the President or Governor. She raised concerns that this could tilt the federal balance enshrined in the Constitution.
According to The Times of India, the President’s 14 questions include:
- What are the constitutional choices available to a Governor under Article 200 upon receiving a Bill?
- Is the Governor required to act solely on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers when dealing with such Bills?
- Can the Governor’s discretion under Article 200 be subject to judicial scrutiny?
- Does Article 361 completely shield a Governor's decisions under Article 200 from court review?
- In the absence of express timelines in the Constitution, can the judiciary impose time limits on Governors for acting on Bills?
- Can the President’s discretion under Article 201 be judicially reviewed?
- Is the President bound by judicially prescribed timelines in the absence of constitutional mandates?
- Must the President necessarily seek the Supreme Court’s opinion under Article 143 when a Bill is reserved by a Governor?
- Can courts intervene in decisions by the Governor or President before a Bill becomes law?
- Is it permissible under Article 142 to override or substitute decisions of the President or Governor?
- Does a Bill passed by a state legislature become law without gubernatorial assent?
- Should constitutional interpretation questions first be referred to a Constitution Bench under Article 145(3)?
- Does Article 142 extend beyond procedural matters to allow rulings that contradict existing laws or constitutional provisions?
- Can Centre-state disputes be resolved outside Article 131, which provides for exclusive SC jurisdiction?
