14 questions: President Droupadi Murmu seeks SC opinion on Bill assent deadlines under Article 143

President Droupadi Murmu has referred 14 questions to the Supreme Court, seeking its opinion on whether the top court could invoke its inherent powers under Article 142 to set timelines or dictate the procedure for the President and Governors, when handling State Bills submitted for assent or reserved for consideration.

The reference, made to the Supreme Court under Article 143 of the Constitution, seeks clarification on the constitutional choices available to a Governor when a Bill is presented for assent under Article 200.

Article 143 is rarely invoked, as it is reserved for matters of profound constitutional or national importance.

The President’s decision to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion stems from an April 8 ruling by a Bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan. The judgment came in response to a petition filed by the Tamil Nadu government, which challenged the Governor’s prolonged delay in granting assent to 10 Bills that had been re-passed by the State Assembly, as well as his subsequent move to reserve them for Presidential consideration. 

In its ruling, the Court deemed the Governor’s actions unconstitutional and, in an invocation of Article 142, established timelines for the President and Governors to act on State legislation.

The court urged the President to decide within three months of receiving a Bill from a Governor as it laid down such a timeline for the first time. It asked that the President’s office convey reasons to the concerned state if there is any delay beyond this period.

ALSO READ | Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai: From slums of Amravati to highest echelons of Indian judiciary

The referral, a rare exercise of presidential prerogative, seeks the Court’s advisory opinion on matters of profound constitutional significance, particularly the judiciary’s authority to prescribe timelines for the President’s actions.

President Murmu has listed a series of 14 questions for the Supreme Court to consider and give an opinion under Article 143.

However, this is not the first time such a reference was made. In the 'Delhi Laws Act Case' (1951), the President had sought clarification over the extent of legislative powers of the Central government.

Similarly, the 'Kesavananda Bharati Case' (1973), while not a direct Article 143 referral, did reference the advisory mechanism in discussions on judicial limits.

In the 'Cauvery Water Dispute' (1993), the President had sought the Court’s opinion on implementing tribunal awards.

In the '2G Spectrum Case' (2012), President Pratibha Patil had also exercised this power in relation to the 2G spectrum allocation case. She posed eight questions to the Court, addressing key issues, such as the extent of judicial intervention in policy decisions and whether public resources must be allocated exclusively through auctions.

In 2016, the then-President Pranab Mukherjee referred a query to the Supreme Court, seeking its opinion on whether the government could classify the Goods and Services Tax (GST) as a Money Bill, thereby bypassing the Rajya Sabha.

What were the 14 questions that President Murmu referred to the Supreme Court?

1. 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. 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. 3. Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India justiciable?
4. 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. 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. 6. Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the President under Article 201 of the Constitution of India justiciable?
7. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 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?
14. 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?