In an unusual constitutional development, the President of India, Droupadi Murmu, has invoked Article 143(1) of the Constitution of India to seek the opinion of the Supreme Court on issues arising from its recent judgment concerning the timelines for the Governor and the President to grant assent to Bills passed by State Legislatures.

Article 143(1) empowers the President to refer to the Supreme Court any question of law or fact that is of public importance. Acting under this provision, President Murmu has formally questioned the Supreme Court’s recent direction which introduced timelines for granting assent to Bills and held that non-compliance with such timelines would attract judicial scrutiny.

The reference notes that the idea of an implied or automatic assent in case of delay is inconsistent with the constitutional scheme and significantly limits the powers of the President and the Governor. It emphasizes that Articles 200 and 201, which govern the process of assent, contain no timelines or specific procedures for how those powers are to be exercised.

As part of the reference, the President has submitted 14 detailed questions to the Supreme Court for its opinion:

1. What are the constitutional options before a Governor when a Bill is presented to him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?

2. Is the Governor bound by the aid & 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?

3. Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India justiciable?

4. Is Article 361 of the Constitution of India an absolute bar to the judicial review in relation to the actions of a Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?

5. In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed time limit, and the manner of exercise of powers by the Governor, can timelines be imposed and the manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of all powers under Article 200 of the Constitution of India by the Governor?

6. Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the President under Article 201 of the Constitution of India justiciable?

7. In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed timeline and the manner of exercise of powers by the President, can timelines be imposed and the manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of discretion by the President under Article 201 of the Constitution of India?

8. In light of the constitutional scheme governing the powers of the President, is the President required to seek advice of the Supreme Court by way of a reference under Article 143 of the Constitution of India and take the opinion of the Supreme Court when the Governor reserves a Bill for the President's assent or otherwise?

9. Are the decisions of the Governor and the President under Article 200 and Article 201 of the Constitution of India, respectively, justiciable at a stage anterior into the law coming into force? Is it permissible for the Courts to undertake judicial adjudication over the contents of a Bill, in any manner, before it becomes law?

10. Can the exercise of constitutional powers and the orders of/by the President / Governor be substituted in any manner under Article 142 of the Constitution of India?

11. Is a law made by the State legislature a law in force without the assent of the Governor granted under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?

12. In view of the proviso to Article 145(3) of the Constitution of India, is it not mandatory for any bench of this Hon'ble Court to first decide as to whether the question involved in the proceedings before it is of such a nature which involves substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of constitution and to refer it to a bench of minimum five Judges?

13. Do the powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India limited to matters of procedural law or Article 142 of the Constitution of India extends to issuing directions /passing orders which are contrary to or inconsistent with existing substantive or procedural provisions of the Constitution or law in force?

14. Does the Constitution bar any other jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to resolve disputes between the Union Government and the State Governments except by way of a suit under Article 131 of the Constitution of India?

The President’s reference follows a ruling by a bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, delivered in a case filed by the State of Tamil Nadu. In that decision, the Court observed that while Articles 200 and 201 do not specify any timeline for action on Bills, these provisions must be interpreted in a way that does not allow indefinite inaction. It further held that the President must decide on a Bill reserved under Article 201 within a period of three months from the date of receipt, and any delay beyond this period must be supported by reasons conveyed to the concerned State.

This ruling has drawn criticism from several quarters, including the Vice President of India, Jagdeep Dhankhar, who expressed strong reservations:

"There is a directive to the President by a recent judgement. Where are we heading? What is happening in the country? We have to be extremely sensitive. It is not a question of someone filing a review or not. We never bargained for democracy for this day. President being called upon to decide in a time-bound manner and if not, it becomes law. So we have judges who will legislate, who will perform executive functions, who will act as super Parliament and absolutely have no accountability because law of the land does not apply to them."

With this formal reference now before it, the Supreme Court is expected to constitute a Bench to examine and respond to the questions raised by the President.

Source- News