The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to examine a series of critical constitutional questions raised by President Droupadi Murmu regarding the timelines within which Governors and the President must act on bills passed by state legislatures. The development follows a rare invocation of Article 143 of the Constitution, which empowers the President to seek the Court’s advisory opinion on matters of law or fact of public importance.
The five-judge Constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha, and A.S. Chandurkar, will begin hearing the matter in mid-August. The court is expected to finalize the hearing schedule on July 29.
The President’s 14 questions come in the wake of the Supreme Court’s April 8 verdict, which set a definitive timeline for Governors to act on state bills. The ruling stated that a Governor has no discretion under Article 200 and must act strictly on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. The verdict further allowed state governments to approach the Supreme Court directly if the President withheld assent to a bill.
Among the questions posed by President Murmu are whether timelines can be judicially imposed in the absence of constitutional provisions, the justiciability of decisions made by Governors and the President, and whether Article 361 bars courts from reviewing their actions. She also asked whether courts can adjudicate the content of a bill before it becomes law, and if Article 142 allows the Supreme Court to override constitutional procedures.
Significantly, the President also questioned whether a state law is valid without gubernatorial assent and whether Article 131 is the exclusive route for resolving Centre-State disputes.
The reference is seen as a pivotal moment in Centre-State relations, particularly in light of growing friction between Governors and opposition-ruled states. The President emphasised that the questions are of "such public importance" that Supreme Court opinion is expedient.
This move not only opens the door for a broader constitutional interpretation of the powers and duties of Governors and the President but also sets the stage for clarifying institutional checks and balances in a federal structure.
