President Droupadi Murmu, invoking Article 143(1) of the Constitution of India, has sought the opinion of the Supreme Court on 14 significant constitutional questions relating to the powers and functioning of Governors and the President under Articles 200 and 201.
NEW DELHI: President Droupadi Murmu has asked the Supreme Court for its legal opinion under Article 143(1) of the Constitution. She wants to know whether the President’s and Governors’ actions on Bills passed by state assemblies can be reviewed by courts and whether judicial timelines can be imposed on them, even though the Constitution does not mention any such deadlines.
This comes after the Supreme Court recently fixed a timeline of three months for the President to act on Bills that are reserved for consideration under Article 201. Earlier, in April this year, the top court had also set time limits for Governors to act under Article 200 when a Bill is presented to them by a state legislature.
The Supreme Court had ruled that:
“In case of any delay beyond this period, appropriate reasons would have to be recorded and conveyed.”
In a significant judgment, the Court also criticised Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi, calling his actions illegal and erroneous. The Governor had reserved 10 Bills for the President’s assent in November 2023, even though they had already been reconsidered and passed again by the Tamil Nadu Assembly.
What Did President Murmu Ask the Supreme Court?
President Murmu has raised several serious and detailed constitutional questions in her reference to the top court:
In exercise of the powers conferred upon me by clause (1) of Article 143 of the Constitution of India, I, Droupadi Murmu, President of India, hereby refer the following questions to the Supreme Court of India for consideration and to report its opinion thereon, namely:-
- What are the constitutional options before a Governor when a Bill is presented to him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?
- 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?
- Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India justiciable?
- 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?
- 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?
- Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the President under Article 201 of the Constitution of India justiciable?
- 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?
- 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?
- 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 to 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?
- 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?
- 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?
- 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?
- 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?
- 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?
President Murmu highlighted that Article 200 deals with the powers of a Governor regarding Bills passed by the state assembly. It allows the Governor to:
- Give assent
- Withhold assent
- Reserve the Bill for the President’s consideration
However, she pointed out:
“Article 200 of the Constitution, which prescribes the powers of the Governor and the procedure to be followed while assenting to Bills, withholding assent to Bills and reserving a Bill for the consideration of the President, does not stipulate any time frame upon the Governor for the exercise of constitutional options.”
Similarly, Article 201 mentions the President’s powers to give or withhold assent to Bills reserved by the Governor but:
“Does not stipulate any time frame or procedure to be followed by the President for the exercise of constitutional options under” it.
With no time limits given in the Constitution, the Supreme Court’s earlier decision to set timelines is now under question. The President is asking whether such directions from the judiciary are even constitutionally valid, and whether her and the Governor’s decisions can be reviewed by courts.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
