President Murmu Questions SC's Deadline Ruling on State Bills
15 May 2025 10:53 AM IST15 May 2025 10:53 AM IST
The President's response 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
President Droupadi Murmu (PTI)
New Delhi: Invoking the rarely used Article 143(1) of the Constitution, President Droupadi Murmu has posed 14 crucial questions to the Supreme Court over its recent verdict that fixed timelines for governors and the President to act on bills passed by the state Assemblies.
In her five-page reference to the apex court, Ms Murmu on Tuesday said that in the present circumstances, it appears that questions of law have arisen and they are of such nature and public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the top court thereon.
The President's decision comes in light of the April 8 verdict of the apex court passed in a matter over the powers of the governor in dealing with bills questioned by the Tamil Nadu government.
Article 200 deals with situations with regard to the passage of bills by the state Assembly and subsequent options available to the governor on grant of assent or withholding of the assent or sending the bill to the President for reconsideration.
Article 201 deals with the bills reserved for the President's consideration by the governors.
Article 143(1) deals with the authority of the President to consult the Supreme Court. The constitutional law says: "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, s/he may refer the question to that court for consideration and the court may, after such a hearing as it thinks fit, report to the President its opinion thereon."
The questions posed by Ms Murmu are:
* What are the constitutional options before a governor when a bill is presented to her/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 her/him when a bill is presented before her/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 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 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?
* ... (Are) 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 extend 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?
In its April 8 verdict, the Supreme Court had set a timeline for all the governors to act on the bills passed by the state Assemblies and ruled that a governor does not possess any discretion in the exercise of functions under Article 200 of the Constitution in respect to any bill presented to them and must mandatorily abide by the advice tendered by the council of ministers.
The top court judgment for the first time prescribed that the President should decide on the bills reserved for her/his consideration by the governor within three months from the date on which such reference is received. The state governments can directly approach the Supreme Court if the President withholds assent to a bill sent by a governor for consideration, it ruled.
A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan said reserving a bill on grounds such as "personal dissatisfaction of the governor, political expediency or any other extraneous or irrelevant considerations" is strictly impermissible by the Constitution and would be liable to be set aside forthwith on that ground alone.
The Centre has resorted to the presidential reference instead of seeking a review of the verdict. The rules prescribe for the review petitions to be heard by the same set of judges in the apex court in chambers while presidential references are heard and considered by a five-judge Constitution bench.
The apex court, however, may choose to refuse to answer any or all of the questions raised in the reference.
Article 200, the reference underlined, which prescribes powers of governor to be followed while assenting to bills, withholding assent to bills and reserving a bill for the President's consideration, does not stipulate any time frame upon the governor for the exercise of constitutional options.
Ms Murmu said similarly Article 201, which prescribes the powers of the President and the procedure to be followed while assenting to bills or withholding assent therefrom, does not stipulate any time frame or procedure to be followed by the President for the exercise of constitutional options under Article 201 of the Constitution.
Ms Murmu also questioned the exercise of plenary power under Article 142 of the Constitution by the Supreme Court to make the bill re-presented to the Tamil Nadu governor, as deemed to have been passed.
"Whereas the concept of a deemed assent of the President and the governor is alien to the constitutional scheme and fundamentally circumscribes the power of the President and the governor," the reference of May 13 said.
The President said the contours and scope of provisions in Article 142 of the Constitution in the context of issues which are occupied by either constitutional provisions or statutory provisions also require an opinion of the Supreme Court of India.
"It appears to me that the following questions of the law have arisen and are of such nature and of such public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court of India thereon," Ms Murmu said while posing 14 questions to the apex court for its opinion.
In her five-page reference to the apex court, Ms Murmu on Tuesday said that in the present circumstances, it appears that questions of law have arisen and they are of such nature and public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the top court thereon.
The President's decision comes in light of the April 8 verdict of the apex court passed in a matter over the powers of the governor in dealing with bills questioned by the Tamil Nadu government.
Article 200 deals with situations with regard to the passage of bills by the state Assembly and subsequent options available to the governor on grant of assent or withholding of the assent or sending the bill to the President for reconsideration.
Article 201 deals with the bills reserved for the President's consideration by the governors.
Article 143(1) deals with the authority of the President to consult the Supreme Court. The constitutional law says: "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, s/he may refer the question to that court for consideration and the court may, after such a hearing as it thinks fit, report to the President its opinion thereon."
The questions posed by Ms Murmu are:
* What are the constitutional options before a governor when a bill is presented to her/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 her/him when a bill is presented before her/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 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 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?
* ... (Are) 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 extend 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?
In its April 8 verdict, the Supreme Court had set a timeline for all the governors to act on the bills passed by the state Assemblies and ruled that a governor does not possess any discretion in the exercise of functions under Article 200 of the Constitution in respect to any bill presented to them and must mandatorily abide by the advice tendered by the council of ministers.
The top court judgment for the first time prescribed that the President should decide on the bills reserved for her/his consideration by the governor within three months from the date on which such reference is received. The state governments can directly approach the Supreme Court if the President withholds assent to a bill sent by a governor for consideration, it ruled.
A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan said reserving a bill on grounds such as "personal dissatisfaction of the governor, political expediency or any other extraneous or irrelevant considerations" is strictly impermissible by the Constitution and would be liable to be set aside forthwith on that ground alone.
The Centre has resorted to the presidential reference instead of seeking a review of the verdict. The rules prescribe for the review petitions to be heard by the same set of judges in the apex court in chambers while presidential references are heard and considered by a five-judge Constitution bench.
The apex court, however, may choose to refuse to answer any or all of the questions raised in the reference.
Article 200, the reference underlined, which prescribes powers of governor to be followed while assenting to bills, withholding assent to bills and reserving a bill for the President's consideration, does not stipulate any time frame upon the governor for the exercise of constitutional options.
Ms Murmu said similarly Article 201, which prescribes the powers of the President and the procedure to be followed while assenting to bills or withholding assent therefrom, does not stipulate any time frame or procedure to be followed by the President for the exercise of constitutional options under Article 201 of the Constitution.
Ms Murmu also questioned the exercise of plenary power under Article 142 of the Constitution by the Supreme Court to make the bill re-presented to the Tamil Nadu governor, as deemed to have been passed.
"Whereas the concept of a deemed assent of the President and the governor is alien to the constitutional scheme and fundamentally circumscribes the power of the President and the governor," the reference of May 13 said.
The President said the contours and scope of provisions in Article 142 of the Constitution in the context of issues which are occupied by either constitutional provisions or statutory provisions also require an opinion of the Supreme Court of India.
"It appears to me that the following questions of the law have arisen and are of such nature and of such public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court of India thereon," Ms Murmu said while posing 14 questions to the apex court for its opinion.
( Source : Deccan Chronicle )
Next Story