New Delhi: President Droupadi Murmu on Wednesday asked the Supreme Court for its legal opinion on whether courts can interfere with or set deadlines for the actions of the President and Governors when dealing with Bills passed by state assemblies. The request was made under Article 143(1) of the Constitution, which allows the President to seek the Supreme Court’s guidance on important legal questions.
This move comes after the Supreme Court, in a decision, set a three-month deadline for the President to act on Bills reserved by state Governors. The court also ruled that any delay beyond this period must be explained in writing. This marked the first time such a timeline was suggested by the judiciary, even though the Constitution does not specify any time limit under Article 201 for the President’s decision.
What prompted this?
In April, the Supreme Court criticised Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi for delaying action on 10 Bills passed by the state assembly. These Bills had already been reconsidered and passed again by the Assembly, yet the Governor referred them to the President months later. The court called this move “illegal and erroneous” and said Governors cannot sit indefinitely on state laws.
To address the issue of such delays, the court said Governors should act “as soon as possible” and that the President should decide on referred Bills within three months. This led to debates over whether the judiciary can set rules for how the President and Governors perform their constitutional duties.
President’s questions to Supreme Court
Now, President Murmu wants clarity on several key issues:
- Can courts set deadlines for the President or Governor to act on Bills, especially when the Constitution does not mention any?
- Are the actions of the President and Governors justiciable, meaning, can courts review or question them?
- Does Article 361 of the Constitution protect Governors from court reviews completely?
- Can courts examine the content of a Bill before it becomes law?
- Can the Supreme Court’s powers under Article 142 be used to change or replace decisions made by the President or Governors?
- Does the President need to consult the Supreme Court every time a Governor sends a Bill for consideration?
What the Constitution says
Under Article 200, a Governor can give assent to a Bill, withhold assent, or reserve it for the President. Under Article 201, the President can approve or reject such a Bill. However, the Constitution does not give a timeline for these decisions, nor does it explain how exactly these powers should be used.
President Murmu’s reference asks if the court can step in and set rules for how and when these powers should be exercised, something the Constitution itself doesn’t do.
