Follow TNM's WhatsApp channel for news updates and story links.
President Droupadi Murmu, on Tuesday, May 13, referred 14 constitutional questions to the Supreme Court of India under Article 143 (Power of President to consult Supreme Court), asking the top court to provide its opinion on a range of issues including whether courts can impose timelines on Governors and the President to act on Bills passed by State legislatures.
The Presidential reference comes in the wake of the Supreme Court's April ruling in the Tamil Nadu Bills case, where the court held Governor RN Ravi’s withholding of 10 Bills as "illegal and arbitrary", and directed that assent decisions must be taken within three months.
In the letter addressed to the Supreme Court, President Murmu asked: “What are the constitutional options before a Governor when a Bill is presented to him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?”
Article 200 of the Constitution of India deals with the powers of a Governor with respect to Bills passed by the State Legislature. When a Bill (except a Money Bill) is passed by a State Legislature, it is sent to the Governor for assent. Under Article 200 of the Constitution, the Governor can either give assent, withhold it, return the Bill for reconsideration (if it's not a Money Bill), or reserve it for the President’s consideration.
https://www.thenewsminute.com/news/governors-powers-cant-be-used-to-thwart-lawmaking-sc
Another question by the President is: “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?”
She also sought clarity on whether the Governor’s discretion under Article 200 and the President’s discretion under Article 201 (procedure when a Governor reserves a Bill for the President’s consideration) are subject to judicial review, and whether the immunity under Article 361 (immunity to the President and Governors from legal proceedings during their term of office) bars such scrutiny.
The President further asked: “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?”
This move comes after the apex court, through a bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, held that a Governor cannot reserve a re-passed Bill for Presidential consideration and must act within a three-month period. The court had also ruled that the President must communicate reasons for their decision to the state government.
The judgement suggested that in matters involving constitutional interpretation, the President should consult the Supreme Court through an Article 143 reference. President Murmu’s letter appears to be a response to this observation.
The reference also asks whether decisions by the Governor and the President under Articles 200 and 201 can be challenged before the law comes into force, and whether courts can review the contents of a Bill prior to its enactment.
This constitutional development follows comments made by Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar, who criticised the judiciary’s use of Article 142, likening it to a “nuclear missile” against democratic institutions.
The questions posed by the President to the apex court signal a potential redefinition of the balance of power between the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. The Supreme Court’s opinion on this Presidential reference is now awaited.
Letter text:
10
PRESIDENT REPUBLIC OF INDIA
NOW, THEREFORE, 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:-
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?
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?
Agency copy:
President Murmu seeks SC’s opinion on setting timelines on assent of Bills
New Delhi, May 15 (IANS) In the aftermath of the Supreme Court verdict in the Tamil Nadu Bills case, President Droupadi Murmu, in a reference made under Article 143 of the Constitution, has asked the top court to consider whether timelines can be imposed on Governors to act on Bills in the absence of a constitutionally-prescribed time limit.
The President asked the apex court to report its opinion on constitutional options available to a Governor when a Bill is presented to him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India.
“Is the Governor bound by the aid and 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?” the President asked the Supreme Court.
Further, it questioned if the exercise of constitutional discretion by the Governor on Bills is justiciable, when Article 361 of the Constitution puts an absolute bar to judicial review in relation to gubernatorial actions.
“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?” President Murmu asked the top court to consider and report its opinion thereon.
Earlier in April, a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court, using its inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, resolved a standoff between the Tamil Nadu government and Governor R.N. Ravi over the delay in granting assent to Bills passed by the Assembly.
It ruled that Governor Ravi's refusal to approve 10 Bills in Tamil Nadu was both "illegal and arbitrary" and set a three-month deadline for Presidential and gubernatorial approval of Bills passed by the legislature for a second time.
"The President is required to take a decision on the Bills reserved for his consideration by the Governor within a period of three months from the date on which such reference is received," said a Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan.
If there is no decision within this time frame, states are entitled to file writ petitions seeking a writ of mandamus against the President, the Justice Pardiwala-led Bench clarified.
The apex court used the powers for the purpose of declaring the 10 withheld Bills as deemed to have been assented to on the date when they were presented to the Governor after being reconsidered by the state legislature.
The top court held that once a Bill is returned, re-passed by the legislature, and presented again to the Governor, it is not open for the Governor to reserve it for the President’s consideration.
Additionally, the President is now under an obligation to provide reasons for their decision, which must be communicated to the state government.
Further, it suggested that the President should consult the Supreme Court on Bills involving Constitutional issues.
The judgment, apparently, brought Presidential actions under judicial review by favouring a three-month deadline for granting assent to Bills.
The issue took a new twist after Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar used strong words against the judiciary, comparing Article 142 to a ‘nuclear missile’ available to the judiciary against democratic forces.