Prez Murmu seeks SC opinion on questions arising out of verdict setting deadline for assent to state Bills

President Droupadi Murmu has sought the Supreme Court’s opinion on 14 questions arising out of April 8 verdict fixing deadlines for Governors and the President to take a call on Bills passed by state Assemblies.

In an unprecedented verdict, the apex court had on April 8 restricted the President’s discretionary powers on Bills referred by Governors under Article 201 of the Constitution and set a three-month timeframe for her to decide on the bills reserved for her consideration.

The President has sought the opinion under Article 143 which deals with the advisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under which the President is empowered to consult the top court and seek its opinion on questions of law or fact.

Article 143(1) reads, “If at any time it appears to the President that a question of law or fact has arisen, or is likely to arise, which is of such a nature and of such public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court upon it, he may refer the question to that Court for consideration and the Court may, after such hearing as it thinks fit, report to the President its opinion thereon.”

In its April 8 order, the SC while restricting discretionary powers had said, “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. In case of any delay beyond this period, appropriate reasons would have to be recorded and conveyed to the concerned State,” a Bench led by Justice JB Pardiwala had said.

“Where the President exhibits inaction in making a decision when a bill is presented to him (her) for assent under Article 201 and such inaction exceeds the time-limit (of three months) then it shall be open to the State Government to seek a writ of mandamus from this Court,” the Bench — which also included Justice R Mahadevan — had said.

Exercising its plenary power under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Bench had declared that the 10 Bills would be deemed to have received the Governor’s assent when they were presented to him for the second time after having been passed by the state legislature again.

Now, the President has also sought the top court’s opinion on its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. She has asked the Supreme Court to clarify if its powers under Article 142 were limited to matters of procedural law or extended to issuing directions or orders contrary to or inconsistent with the existing substantive or procedural provisions of the Constitution or any law in force.

Top News