The President of India, Droupadi Murmu, has invoked Article 143 of the Constitution to seek the opinion of the Supreme Court on a series of constitutional questions arising from the landmark judgment delivered by the Court on April 8 in the Tamil Nadu Governor matter. The reference stems from the Court’s ruling that ten bills pending before Governor R.N. Ravi, the earliest since January 2020, were deemed to have received assent due to prolonged inaction, a decision that has now triggered complex questions regarding constitutional interpretation.
The presidential reference, comprising 14 detailed legal questions, has been prompted by the Court’s observations directing that the President decide on a Bill within three months once it has been reserved by a Governor under Article 201. The President has now asked the Apex Court whether such a judicially prescribed timeline is constitutionally valid when no explicit time limit is provided in the text of the Constitution.
The Apex Court had earlier criticised the delay in action on bills re-enacted by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly and declared the Governor's conduct in withholding action as “illegal and erroneous.” This led to a historic declaration that the ten Bills had attained deemed assent, despite the absence of formal approval, a conclusion the President has now questioned as being "alien" to the constitutional structure and one that "circumscribes" the discretionary authority of the President and the Governor.
Accordingly, the President has placed the following questions for the Supreme Court's advisory opinion under Article 143:
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?
6. 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 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?
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?
The move has wide constitutional implications and may redefine the boundaries of executive discretion, judicial oversight, and the federal balance of power. The Supreme Court is now expected to deliberate upon the reference in the coming weeks, which could potentially set a precedent on the enforceability of constitutional duties of high offices like that of the Governor and the President in the legislative process.
Picture Source :
