Can Judiciary Impose a Deadline for Presidential Assent on State Bills? President Seeks Supreme Court's Opinion
New Delhi, May 15 – In a rare invocation of Article 143(1) of the Constitution, President Droupadi Murmu has formally sought the Supreme Court's opinion on whether a judicial order can prescribe a time frame within which the President must act on state legislature-passed bills forwarded by governors for consideration.
Article 143(1) empowers the President to seek the Supreme Court’s advice if it appears that a legal or constitutional question of public importance has arisen or is likely to arise. While the Court may choose to offer its opinion after a hearing, it is not obliged to do so.
The President’s referral comes in the wake of an April 8 Supreme Court judgment that addressed the powers of governors regarding bills passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly. In that judgment, the Court suggested, for the first time, that a decision on bills reserved for the President’s consideration should be taken within three months of their submission.
Acting on this judgment, the President submitted a five-page letter to the Court, posing 14 specific questions centered on the interpretation and implementation of Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution. These articles deal with the powers of governors in relation to bills passed by state legislatures and the subsequent referral of those bills to the President.
Article 200 provides the governor with options to grant assent, withhold assent, or reserve a bill for the President’s consideration. Article 201 outlines the process for such reserved bills but does not stipulate any time limit for presidential action.
President Murmu’s letter notes that neither of these articles specifies any time frame for the constitutional decisions by governors or the President. She has also questioned the Supreme Court’s use of Article 142 in the Tamil Nadu case, through which it deemed certain bills as passed and directed them to be returned to the governor.
The government's decision to seek clarity through a presidential reference, instead of filing a review petition against the Court's verdict, has sparked sharp political reactions. Typically, review petitions are heard in chambers by the same bench that issued the original judgment. In contrast, a presidential reference under Article 143(1) is decided by a five-judge Constitution Bench, giving the issue broader constitutional weight.
Legal experts point out that while the Supreme Court is not bound to respond to the President’s queries, the nature of the questions — dealing with the roles and limits of constitutional authorities — are significant and likely to attract detailed judicial scrutiny.
The Court’s April 8 ruling emphasized that governors have no discretionary power under Article 200 and must act in accordance with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. The judgment also asserted that if the President withholds assent to a reserved bill, the concerned state government could directly approach the Supreme Court for redress.
President Murmu, in her letter dated May 13, argued that the constitutional silence on time limits in Articles 200 and 201 creates ambiguity, making the Court’s judgment a potential point of legal contention. She believes that this matter touches on essential aspects of federal functioning and warrants judicial clarification.
The Supreme Court’s response to this presidential reference will have far-reaching implications for Centre-State relations, particularly in the context of legislative process and executive oversight.
