In a significant constitutional development, President Droupadi Murmu has invoked Article 143(1) of the Indian Constitution to seek the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion on 14 questions concerning the powers and responsibilities of the President and state Governors in granting assent to state legislation. This move follows the Supreme Court’s April 2025 judgment, which imposed timelines for Governors and the President to act on state bills a decision that has sparked a robust debate on the separation of powers and judicial overreach.
The Supreme Court’s April 2025 Judgment
The controversy stems from a Supreme Court ruling in response to the Tamil Nadu government’s petition against delays by Governor R.N. Ravi in assenting to state bills. The Court held that Governors and the President must act within a “reasonable time” on bills presented for assent. Specifically, it set a three-month deadline for the President to decide on bills reserved by Governors, invoking Article 142 to ensure “complete justice.” The Court also declared that bills pending beyond this period would be deemed to have received assent. This judgment raised concerns about the judiciary prescribing timelines for constitutional authorities, prompting President Murmu to seek clarity.
The Presidential Reference under Article 143(1)
On May 13, 2025, President Murmu exercised her power under Article 143(1) to refer 14 questions to the Supreme Court. These questions address critical issues, including:
- The constitutional options available to a Governor when a bill is presented under Article 200.
- Whether the Governor is bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers in such matters
- The justiciability of the Governor’s discretion under Article 200.
- The legitimacy of the Supreme Court setting timelines for the President and Governors in the absence of explicit constitutional provisions.
- The validity of the concept of “deemed assent” introduced by the Court.
These questions aim to clarify the constitutional boundaries between the executive and judiciary, particularly concerning legislative processes.
Legal and Constitutional Implications
The President’s reference brings to the forefront several constitutional principles:
- Article 143(1): Allows the President to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion on questions of law or fact of public importance.
- Article 200: Outlines the Governor’s options when presented with a state bill grant assent, withhold assent, or reserve the bill for the President’s consideration.
- Article 201: Details the President’s options when a bill is reserved by a Governor.
- Article 142: Empowers the Supreme Court to pass orders necessary for complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it.
By questioning the Court’s use of Article 142 to impose timelines and declare deemed assent, the President is seeking to delineate the extent of judicial intervention permissible in executive functions.
Political Reactions and Broader Implications
The President’s move has elicited varied responses. Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin criticized the reference, suggesting it undermines the federal structure and autonomy of non-BJP-ruled states. He accused the central government of attempting to “paralyse” state administrations through such interventions.(The Times of India)
Legal experts, however, view the reference as a constitutional mechanism to resolve ambiguities and prevent potential conflicts between the branches of government. They emphasize that the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion, while not binding, will carry significant weight in guiding future interactions between the executive and judiciary.
The Path Ahead
Chief Justice of India Bhushan Gavai is expected to constitute a Constitution Bench to deliberate on the President’s questions. The Bench’s opinion will be pivotal in clarifying the constitutional roles and limitations of the President and Governors concerning legislative assent.
This episode underscores the dynamic nature of constitutional interpretation and the ongoing dialogue between India’s branches of government. As the nation awaits the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion, the outcome will likely have lasting implications for the balance of power and the functioning of India’s federal democracy.
Sources:
- https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/president-droupadi-murmu-invokes-article-1431-to-question-scs-ruling-fixing-deadlines-for-guvs/articleshow/121195102.cms?utm_
- https://www.scobserver.in/journal/does-the-president-reference-raise-questions-which-the-supreme-court-did-not-answer-earlier-tamil-nadu-governor/?utm_
- https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/president-droupadi-murmu-supreme-court-can-timelines-be-imposed-presidents-big-question-to-supreme-court-8418096?utm_
- https://www.indiatoday.in/india/law-news/story/clear-overreach-president-asks-chief-justice-to-clarify-14-questions-of-law-on-top-courts-tamil-nadu-ruling-2724937-2025-05-15?utm_
More Current Affairs: https://learnproacademy.in/updates/