President Droupadi Murmu Challenges Supreme Court’s Deadline Ruling on State Bills


📜 Background: Supreme Court’s April 8 Verdict

On April 8, 2024, the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant ruling in the case involving the Tamil Nadu Government vs the Governor, setting specific deadlines for the Governor and President to decide on pending state legislation. This decision was perceived as a move to curb executive delay in state lawmaking processes.

However, this directive faced a constitutional rebuttal from President Droupadi Murmu, who has now formally questioned the legal validity of imposing such deadlines through judicial orders.

🏛️ President Murmu's Constitutional Standpoint

In her response, President Murmu asserted that neither Article 200 nor Article 201 of the Constitution prescribes any timelines for the Governor or the President to act upon state Bills.

Article 200: Role of the Governor

This provision allows the Governor to:

  • Grant assent to a Bill,

  • Withhold assent,

  • Return the Bill to the state legislature (if it is not a money Bill),

  • Or reserve it for the President’s consideration.

⚠️ Importantly, Article 200 does not mandate any time frame within which these decisions must be taken.

Article 201: Role of the President

This article outlines the President's authority to:

  • Grant or withhold assent to a Bill,

  • Or instruct the Governor to return it to the state legislature.

Similarly, Article 201 also lacks any deadline or prescribed procedure for exercising such powers.

⚖️ The Federalism and Separation of Powers Debate

President Murmu's reference raises concerns about the federal structure and separation of powers. The use of judicial directives to set timelines on executive functions, particularly constitutional discretion, was flagged as potentially encroaching upon the executive domain.

Her communication also invoked broader constitutional principles such as:

  • Federalism

  • National security and integrity

  • Legal uniformity

  • Autonomy of constitutional offices


🔍 Unresolved Legal Ambiguities

Adding to the complexity, the Supreme Court has previously issued contradictory rulings regarding whether the President’s assent under Article 201 is subject to judicial review.

Further, states have increasingly been using Article 32 (enforcing fundamental rights) instead of Article 131 (original jurisdiction of SC in federal disputes), thus leading to fragmented jurisprudence on such federal issues.

🧭 Reference to Supreme Court Under Article 143(1)

To resolve these constitutional ambiguities, President Murmu has invoked Article 143(1) — the provision that allows the President to seek the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion on questions of law or fact of public importance.

Key Questions Referred by the President:

  1. What constitutional options are available to a Governor under Article 200?

  2. Is the Governor bound by the advice of the Council of Ministers?

  3. Can the Governor’s discretion under Article 200 be reviewed by the judiciary?

  4. Does Article 361 bar judicial scrutiny of a Governor’s actions under Article 200?

  5. Can courts impose deadlines despite the Constitution’s silence on the matter?

  6. Is the President’s discretion under Article 201 subject to judicial review?

  7. Can courts set procedures for the President's discretion under Article 201?

  8. Must the President seek SC opinion under Article 143 when deciding on reserved Bills?

  9. Are decisions under Articles 200 and 201 justiciable before the law is enacted?

  10. Can courts override constitutional powers of the Governor/President via Article 142?

  11. Does a state law come into effect without Governor's assent under Article 200?

  12. Should all substantial constitutional questions be heard by a five-judge bench under Article 145(3)?

  13. Do SC’s Article 142 powers allow issuing directives that contradict statutory law?

  14. Can disputes between Union and State be resolved judicially without Article 131?

🗣️ Legal Experts Weigh In

Former Union Law Minister Ashwani Kumar lauded the President's move, calling it a “well-made constitutional reference.” He emphasized the need for clarity amid perceived tensions between the judiciary and executive, stating that the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion will be vital to settle the scope and boundaries of power in Indian democracy.

"This touches a fundamental aspect of our democracy — the balance of powers between judiciary and executive," Kumar told ANI.

🔎 Conclusion: A Pivotal Constitutional Moment

This development is not merely procedural — it strikes at the heart of Indian federalism and the limits of judicial activism. As the judiciary prepares to offer its advisory opinion, the nation watches closely.

The outcome could reshape the executive-judiciary dynamic and define how India navigates federal legislation going forward.

📌 Stay Updated on Constitutional Matters, Federal Disputes, and Supreme Court References.


Location: Pune, Maharashtra, India

Comments

Post a Comment