President Droupadi Murmu has raised constitutional questions over the Supreme Court's April 8 ruling, which imposed deadlines on the Governor and the President for deciding on state Bills, asserting that the Indian Constitution does not prescribe any such time frames.
In a strongly worded response, President Murmu emphasised that Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution, which outline the powers and procedures for Governors and Presidents in granting or withholding assent to Bills, do not include any time-bound requirements.
Article 200 grants Governors the authority to either assent to a Bill, withhold assent, or reserve it for the President's consideration. However, it remains silent on the timelines for these actions. Similarly, Article 201 governs the President's assent to Bills but provides no specific deadlines, instead allowing for discretionary judgement based on various factors, including federalism, national security, and the doctrine of separation of powers.
The President's response also noted that the Constitution does not permit the judiciary to impose deadlines that could restrict the discretionary powers of Governors or the President, potentially undermining the federal balance.
Also read: SC directs states, UTs to frame guidelines for 'proper' footpaths
Adding to the complexity, President Murmu cited conflicting Supreme Court judgments on whether the President's assent under Article 201 is subject to judicial review, further complicating the matter.
"Given these unresolved legal concerns and prevailing circumstances," the President has invoked Article 143(1) of the Constitution, formally seeking the Supreme Court's opinion on a series of critical questions, including:
- 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?
- Is the Governor's exercise of discretion under Article 200 subject to judicial review?
- Does Article 361 impose an absolute bar on judicial scrutiny of a Governor's actions under Article 200?
- Can courts impose deadlines and prescribe procedures for Governors to follow when exercising their powers under Article 200, despite the absence of constitutional timelines?
- Is the President's discretion under Article 201 subject to judicial review?
- Can courts set timelines and procedural requirements for the President's exercise of discretion under Article 201?
- Must the President seek a Supreme Court opinion under Article 143 when deciding on Bills reserved by the Governor?
- Are decisions made by the Governor and President under Articles 200 and 201 justiciable before a law officially comes into force?
- Can the judiciary modify or override constitutional powers exercised by the President or Governor through Article 142?
- Does a state law come into effect without the Governor's assent under Article 200?
- Must any bench of the Supreme Court first determine whether a case involves substantial constitutional interpretation and refer it to a five-judge bench under Article 145(3)?
- Do Supreme Court powers under Article 142 extend beyond procedural matters to issuing directives that contradict existing constitutional or statutory provisions?
- Does the Constitution allow the Supreme Court to resolve disputes between the Union and state governments through any means other than a suit under Article 131?
These questions aim to clarify the constitutional boundaries of executive and judicial authority, reinforcing the need for a nuanced interpretation of the Constitution in matters of national significance.
Follow us
