The Supreme Court has on Tuesday issued notices to the Centre and all state governments, seeking their views on whether the Constitution permits fixed timelines for the President and Governors to act on Bills presented to them.
The development comes in response to a reference made by President Droupadi Murmu under Article 143 of the Constitution. The reference seeks the apex court’s opinion on the constitutional position when Bills are presented to the President and Governors under Articles 200 and 201, in the absence of any specified timeframe.
The move follows the court’s sharp verdict in April, when a two-judge Bench held that Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi's refusal to assent to 10 Bills was “illegal and arbitrary”. The Bench had invoked Article 142 of the Constitution to resolve the impasse, stating that once a Bill is re-passed by the legislature and presented again, the Governor has no authority to reserve it for the President’s consideration.
Also read: SC bench to hear Presidential ref on deadlines for state bills
Crucially, the court had also set a three-month deadline for Presidential action on such Bills, a direction that drew significant constitutional scrutiny, as it appeared to bring Presidential discretion under judicial purview.
It is against this backdrop that President Murmu, in May, invoked Article 143 to seek clarity on the constitutional options available to both Governors and the President. Article 143 empowers the President to seek the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion on any matter of public or constitutional importance.
Legal experts have described the situation as unprecedented, noting that the court’s April judgment may have expanded judicial oversight into executive functions historically deemed discretionary.
The Supreme Court’s decision to entertain the reference and issue notices marks a critical moment in the ongoing tussle between constitutional offices and elected governments over legislative assent.
Follow us
