President Droupadi Murmu sends 14 questions to the SC asking to explain the Constitutionality of Judges setting a timeline for the President and Governors
Exercising the President’s power to consult the Supreme Court under Article 143(1) of the Constitution, President Droupadi Murmu has referred a list of 14 questions to the Apex Court seeking its opinion on them. This comes after the Supreme Court delivered a controversial verdict last month prescribing deadlines on the Governor and the President for deciding on state bills in exercise of their powers under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution.
The President highlights that Article 200 of the Constitution of India delineates the powers of the Governor and the procedures for granting or withholding assent to Bills, as well as reserving a Bill for the President’s consideration. However, Article 200 does not specify any timeline for the Governor to exercise these constitutional options.
Similarly, Article 201 outlines the President’s authority and process for assenting to or withholding assent from Bills, but it does not impose any deadlines or procedures for the exercise of these constitutional powers. Moreover, the Constitution recognises various instances where the President’s assent is required before a legislation can take effect in a state.
Specifically, the president has also questioned the apex court’s direction that in case of failure to decide on bill withing 3 months by the President or Governors, it will be deemed to be assent. In the Indian Constitution, there is no concept of deeped concept in case of non-decision by President and governor within a timeline.
Here is the list of questions on which President Murmu has sought the opinion of the Supreme Court-
- What are the constitutional options available to a Governor when presented with a Bill under Article 200?
- Is the Governor bound by the advice of the Council of Ministers in exercising these 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 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?
- 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?
With these questions, the President seeks clarity on the constitutional boundaries of executive and judicial authority, reinforcing the need for judicial interpretation in matters of national significance. The Supreme Court will now have to set up a Constitution Bench for answering the reference of the president.
The verdict, passed in The State of Tamil Nadu v The Governor of Tamil Nadu and Anr, drew flak on the ground that the Supreme Court prescrbed a time limit for the exercise of the powers of the President and the Governor, when the provision does not contain such a time limit. Therefore it amounts to amending the Constitution, which is clearly out of the purview of the Supreme Court.
The judgment arose out of a long-standing tussle between the Tamil Nadu government and the Governor, wherein the latter had reserved 10 Bills passed by the state legislature for the assent of the President. A division bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justices B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, examined the concerned provisions and prescribed some time limits to be followed by the President and the Governor in exercise of their powers under Articles 200 and 201. The Supreme Court ordered that the governors and the president have to decide on bills sent to them within 3 months.
Vice President VP Dhankhar had also questioned the Supreme Court after the verdict for giving direction to the President of India. He reminded the Supreme Court that its power is limited to interpreting the Constitution.
News