In a significant move, President Droupadi Murmu has referred a series of constitutional questions to the Supreme Court under Article 143(1), challenging aspects of the Court’s 8 April judgment regarding the powers and responsibilities of Governors and the President in granting assent to state bills. The judgment in question, delivered by Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan in the Tamil Nadu government vs. Governor case, had established strict timelines for decision-making under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution—provisions which outline the assent process for state legislation.
The President expressed concern over the Court’s interpretation, questioning its legal basis given the absence of any time-bound directives in the Constitution regarding the assent procedure. Noting that the Constitution provides no explicit deadlines for such decisions, she sought the Court’s advisory opinion on 14 critical constitutional issues, invoking Article 143—a rarely used provision allowing the President to consult the apex court on matters of legal complexity or public importance.
Key Constitutional Questions Raised
Among the 14 questions presented to the Court are:
- What are the constitutional options before a Governor when a Bill is presented to him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?
- 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?
- Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India justiciable?
- 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?
- 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
- Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the President under Article 201 of the Constitution of India justiciable?
- 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
- 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?
- 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?
- 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?
- 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?
- 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?
- 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?
- 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?
Breaking 🚨
President Droupadi Murmu of India has sent a reference to the Supreme Court under Article 143 (1) of the Indian Constitution. The reference includes 14 questions.
The most important questions by @rashtrapatibhvn are:
1. Can a timeline be imposed on the President?
2.… pic.twitter.com/PiQUXWDOMy— Shashank Shekhar Jha (@shashank_ssj) May 15, 2025
President: ‘Deemed Assent’ Undermines Constitutional Balance
The President took strong exception to the concept of “deemed assent”, which the Supreme Court invoked to resolve a prolonged impasse involving ten bills pending with the Tamil Nadu Governor. The Court had held that these bills would be considered assented to if not acted upon within the prescribed timeframes. President Murmu argued that such an interpretation is “alien to the constitutional scheme”, and compromises the intended checks and balances between legislative and executive functions at both the Union and State levels.
She further emphasized that Articles 200 and 201 do not specify any timeframe or procedural guidance, suggesting that any judicially imposed timelines could disrupt the delicate balance of federalism, separation of powers, and executive discretion. The President maintained that decisions under these Articles involve complex policy considerations and should not be strictly constrained by judicial mandates.
Concerns Over Judicial Overreach and Use of Article 142
The Court’s reliance on Article 142, which empowers it to do “complete justice,” was also called into question. The President noted that this provision should not be used to override or alter substantive constitutional or statutory requirements. She called for clarity on whether Article 142 allows the judiciary to issue directions inconsistent with the constitutional framework, particularly concerning executive decisions on legislation.
Moreover, she raised concerns about state governments bypassing Article 131—the appropriate mechanism for adjudicating disputes between the Centre and States—by filing writ petitions under Article 32, which is primarily intended for individual rights enforcement.
Call for Constitutional Clarity
Citing divergent judicial precedents and the serious implications of the April 8 ruling, the President urged the Supreme Court to clarify the extent of its powers in relation to gubernatorial and presidential discretion over legislative assent. The reference seeks to resolve long-standing ambiguities over the justiciability, scope, and limits of constitutional discretion under Articles 200 and 201, and the appropriate judicial mechanisms for addressing inter-governmental disputes.
The Union Government has supported this reference, viewing the Court’s April verdict as a case of judicial overreach that risks upsetting the constitutional equilibrium between the legislature, executive, and judiciary.
(With Inputs From TOI & Bar And Bench)
Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.