President Murmu Seeks Supreme Court’s Opinion on Bill Assent Timelines: 14 Constitutional Questions Raised

Bill Assent Timelines: President Droupadi Murmu has posed 14 crucial questions to the Supreme Court over its April 8 verdict that fixed timelines for governors and the President to act on bills passed by state assemblies.

The Reference, issued under Article 143 of the Constitution to the Supreme Court, has sought clarity on the Constitutional options before a Governor when a Bill is presented to him under Article 200.

The President’s Reference said there were “conflicting judgments” of the Supreme Court as to whether the assent of the President under Article 201 was justiciable or not. The Reference has also sought the court’s opinion on the “contours and scope” of Article 142 of the Constitution.

Also Read: Rajnath Singh in Kashmir: IAEA Should Oversee Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons

Questions asked by President

What are the Constitutional options before a Governor when a Bill is presented to him under Article 200 for assent?

Is the Governor bound by the aid and advice tendered by the Council of Ministers?

Is the exercise of Constitutional discretion by the Governor under Article 200 justiciable?

Is Article 361 of the Constitution (immunity given to President and Governors from legal action while in office) an absolute bar to judicial review in relation to the actions of a Governor under Article 200?

In the absence of any Constitutionally prescribed time limit or manner of exercise of powers by a Governor, can time limits be imposed and manner of exercise of powers be prescribed through judicial orders?

Is the exercise of Constitutional discretion by the President under Article 201 (dealing with Bills reserved by a Governor for consideration by the President) justiciable?

Can judicial orders impose timelines and manner of exercise of powers by the President under Article 201?

Also Read: 800 Jain Group Members Cancel Turkey Trip Over National Pride Amid India-Pakistan Tensions

Is the President required to take advice from the Supreme Court when a Bill is reserved by a Governor for the President’s assent?

Are decisions of the Governor and the President under Articles 200 and 201, respectively, justiciable at a stage prior to even the Bill in question becoming a law. 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 Constitutional powers of the President/Governors be substituted by a judicial order exercising Article 142?

Is a law made by the State Legislature a law in force without the assent of the Governor?

Is it not mandatory for a Supreme Court Bench to examine if a case involved substantial questions of law regarding interpretation of the Constitution and refer the case to a Bench of a minimum five judges under Article 145(3)?

Is Article 142 limited to matters of procedural law or does it extend to issuing directions “contrary to or inconsistent with existing substantive or procedural provisions of the Constitution”?

Is there a bar on the Supreme Court from deciding between the Centre and States other than by way of filing an original suit under Article 131?

The President’s move to seek clarity arises from an April 8 judgment of a Supreme Court Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan in a petition filed by the Tamil Nadu government challenging the Governor’s delay in clearing 10 re-passed Bills and his subsequent action to reserve them for consideration by the President. The judgment had declared his action as unconstitutional and invoked Article 142 to set timelines for the President and Governors to act on State Bills.

Also Read: Rajnath Singh Visits Srinagar to Review Security Post India-Pakistan Ceasefire