By The Sampadak Express
President Droupadi Murmu has invoked Article 143(1) of the Constitution to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion on whether judicial timelines can be imposed on the President and Governors for granting assent to Bills passed by state legislatures. The move follows recent Supreme Court directions that set specific timelines for constitutional authorities to act on state legislation.
In a landmark ruling in April, the Supreme Court directed that Governors must act within a reasonable timeframe on Bills sent by state legislatures. Notably, it also suggested that the President should take a decision within three months on Bills reserved for consideration under Article 201 a provision which does not currently specify any deadline.
The court further held that if the President delays action beyond this period, reasons must be recorded and conveyed to the state concerned. It also declared as illegal the actions of Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi, who had reserved ten Bills for the President’s consideration in November 2023 after they had already been reconsidered and passed again by the Tamil Nadu Assembly.
In her reference to the apex court, President Murmu posed several constitutional questions, including:
1. Is the exercise of discretion by the President under Article 201 justiciable?
2. In the absence of explicit constitutional timelines, can the judiciary prescribe such limits for the President or Governors?
3. Does Article 361, which provides immunity to the President and Governors, act as an absolute bar to judicial review of their decisions under Articles 200 and 201?
4. Can courts intervene or adjudicate the contents of a Bill before it becomes law?
The President also questioned whether she is constitutionally required to seek the Supreme Court’s advice whenever a Governor reserves a Bill for her consideration.
Other issues raised include whether the Governor is bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers under Article 200, and whether the Supreme Court can invoke its powers under Article 142 to substitute or direct the exercise of constitutional powers by the President or Governor.
President Murmu highlighted that neither Article 200 nor Article 201 specifies a timeframe or procedure for Governors or the President to follow while acting on state Bills, which has led to growing friction between state governments and Raj Bhavans in recent years.
The Supreme Court’s advisory opinion, when delivered, could have a significant impact on the delicate balance of powers between the judiciary, executive, and federal structure of the Constitution.
