President Droupadi Murmu Flags Judicial Overreach, Asks SC To Clarify 14 Key Questions On Governor's Powers Over State Legislation
New Delhi: In an unprecedented move, President Droupadi Murmu has sought the Supreme Court’s opinion on a series of constitutional concerns relating to the powers of Governors and the President over state legislation. This comes after the SC’s April 8 verdict in the Tamil Nadu Governor vs State Government case, which imposed deadlines on constitutional authorities for acting on Bills, something the President has called a departure from the constitutional framework.
Exercising the rarely used powers under Article 143(1) of the Constitution, the President has referred 14 questions to the apex court, raising doubts about the justifiability of certain constitutional functions and the implications of judicial directions that seemingly impose timelines where none exist in the Constitution.
‘Deemed Assent’ and Court-Set Timelines Questioned
In her communication, the President challenged the court’s ruling that introduced the idea of “deemed assent” to Bills that remain pending with Governors or the President beyond a specific period of time. She underscored that neither Article 200 (governing Governors) nor Article 201 (governing the President) prescribe any time limit or procedural mechanism for granting or withholding assent to Bills passed by state legislatures.
The President also objected to the court’s use of Article 142, which empowers the SC to do “complete justice,” to fill what it sees as legislative or constitutional gaps. She also emphasised that such actions potentially infringe upon the separation of powers and federal balance envisaged by the Constitution.
Key Constitutional Questions Referred to SC
According to The Times of India, the following 14 questions have been raised for the court’s consideration:
1. What are the constitutional choices available to a Governor under Article 200 upon receiving a Bill?
2. Is the Governor required to act solely on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers when dealing with such Bills?
3. Can the Governor’s discretion under Article 200 be subject to judicial scrutiny?
4. Does Article 361 completely shield a Governor's decisions under Article 200 from court review?
5. In the absence of express timelines in the Constitution, can the judiciary impose time limits on Governors for acting on Bills?
6. Can the President’s discretion under Article 201 be judicially reviewed?
7. Is the President bound by judicially prescribed timelines in the absence of constitutional mandates?
8. Must the President necessarily seek the Supreme Court’s opinion under Article 143 when a Bill is reserved by a Governor?
9. Can courts intervene in decisions by the Governor or President before a Bill becomes law?
10. Is it permissible under Article 142 to override or substitute decisions of the President or Governor?
11. Does a Bill passed by a state legislature become law without gubernatorial assent?
12. Should constitutional interpretation questions first be referred to a Constitution Bench under Article 145(3)?
13. Does Article 142 extend beyond procedural matters to allow rulings that contradict existing laws or constitutional provisions?
14. Can Centre-state disputes be resolved outside Article 131, which provides for exclusive SC jurisdiction?
Additionally, the President also criticised the trend of states invoking Article 32, meant to protect fundamental rights, in Centre-state disputes that ideally belong under Article 131.
news