Can Supreme Court Set Timelines for Presidential Assent to Bills Reserved by Governor? President Droupadi Murmu Seeks Clarification Through 14-Point Reference Under Article 143
Kiran Raj
Under Article 143 of the Indian Constitution, President Droupadi Murmu has made a 14-point reference to the Supreme Court, seeking its opinion on whether the Court can prescribe a three-month timeline for the President to decide on a Bill reserved for her consideration by the Governor under Article 201, in the absence of any "constitutionally prescribed timeline." This reference follows the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Tamil Nadu Governor matter delivered on April 8 by a bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan.
Article 143 empowers the President to seek the Supreme Court's opinion on any question of law or fact that has arisen or is likely to arise and is of such public importance that it is deemed necessary to obtain the Court’s view. The case in question involved ten Bills pending with Governor R.N. Ravi, the earliest dating back to January 2020, which were subsequently reserved for the President’s consideration after being re-enacted by the State Assembly. The Supreme Court held the Governor’s action "illegal and erroneous" in law and therefore liable to be set aside.
As a result, and for the first time, the Court ruled that the ten Bills in question would be considered to have received assent. In the reference, the President stated that the idea of "deemed assent" by the President or Governor is "alien" to the constitutional structure and fundamentally "circumscribes" their powers.
The President has sought clarity from the Court on the following points:
- 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 issuingdirections /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?
The Supreme Court will have to form a 5-judge Constitutional bench to answer these questions.
