Raises critical constitutional questions under Article 143(1) regarding the justiciability of Presidential and Gubernatorial discretion
In a rare and significant move, President Droupadi Murmu has invoked Article 143(1) of the Constitution to seek the opinion of the Supreme Court on whether timelines can be judicially imposed on the President and Governors for granting or withholding assent to state legislature Bills, in the absence of such timelines in the constitutional text.
This development comes after the Supreme Court’s ruling in April 2024 where, for the first time, it prescribed a three-month timeframe for the President to act on Bills reserved by Governors, declaring that delays beyond this period must be accompanied by recorded reasons communicated to the concerned state. The Court also held Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi’s actions—reserving ten Bills for Presidential assent after they were reconsidered by the Assembly—as “illegal” and “erroneous.”
President’s Reference to the Supreme Court
In her reference, President Murmu has asked whether the exercise of constitutional discretion by the President under Article 201 and by the Governor under Article 200 is justiciable, and whether judicial orders can impose timelines or dictate the manner in which these constitutional powers are to be exercised.
She further questioned whether Article 361 of the Constitution, which grants immunity to the President and Governors, acts as a complete bar to judicial review in matters involving the discretionary powers under Articles 200 and 201.
President Murmu has also raised an important procedural issue—whether she is constitutionally required to seek the opinion of the Supreme Court under Article 143 whenever a Governor reserves a Bill for her consideration.
Moreover, the reference includes broader questions about judicial authority under Article 142, and the justiciability of executive actions concerning pending legislation that has not yet become law.
Questions Referred by President of India are:
- What are the constitutional options before a Governor when a Bill is presented to him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?
- 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?
- 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?
Constitutional Significance
The President’s reference under Article 143(1)—a constitutional provision enabling the President to seek advisory opinion from the apex court on “any question of law or fact”—has now opened the door for judicial clarification on the boundaries of Presidential and Gubernatorial discretion.
Notably, Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution do not stipulate any timeframe for Governors or the President to act upon Bills. The President has observed that “Article 200 does not stipulate any time frame upon the Governor for the exercise of constitutional options,” and likewise, Article 201 also “does not stipulate any time frame or procedure to be followed by the President for the exercise of constitutional options.”
With this reference, the Supreme Court is now poised to examine the larger constitutional scheme, including the role of separation of powers, federal structure, and checks and balances, particularly in the legislative process at the state level.
