What Does President Murmu's Inquiry to the Supreme Court Mean for Governors and Legislative Bills?

President Murmu Seeks Supreme Court's Guidance on Legislative Timelines

New Delhi: Following the Supreme Court's ruling regarding the Tamil Nadu Bills, President Droupadi Murmu has invoked Article 143 of the Constitution to request the court's opinion on whether it is feasible to set timelines for Governors to act on Bills when no constitutional deadline exists.

The President has asked the Supreme Court to clarify the constitutional options available to a Governor when a Bill is submitted under Article 200 of the Indian Constitution.

She inquired, "Is the Governor obligated to follow the advice provided by the Council of Ministers when considering all available options for a Bill presented under Article 200?"

Additionally, the inquiry raises the question of whether the Governor's constitutional discretion regarding Bills can be subject to judicial review, given that Article 361 prohibits such reviews of gubernatorial actions.

President Murmu also questioned if timelines could be established for the exercise of discretion by the President under Article 201, in the absence of a constitutionally mandated timeline.

Earlier in April, a two-judge panel of the Supreme Court utilized its powers under Article 142 to mediate a conflict between the Tamil Nadu government and Governor R.N. Ravi concerning delays in approving Assembly-passed Bills.

The court deemed Governor Ravi's refusal to approve ten Bills as "illegal and arbitrary," imposing a three-month deadline for both Presidential and gubernatorial approval of Bills that have been passed by the legislature a second time.

The ruling stated, "The President must decide on the Bills reserved for consideration by the Governor within three months of receiving such a reference," as articulated by Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan.

If a decision is not made within this timeframe, states can file writ petitions seeking a writ of mandamus against the President, the Bench clarified.

The Supreme Court also declared that the ten Bills that were withheld would be considered as having received assent on the date they were presented to the Governor after being re-evaluated by the state legislature.

Once a Bill is returned, re-passed, and presented again to the Governor, it is not permissible for the Governor to reserve it for the President's consideration.

Moreover, the President is now required to provide justifications for their decisions, which must be communicated to the state government.

The court also recommended that the President consult the Supreme Court on Bills that involve constitutional matters.

This judgment appears to have subjected Presidential actions to judicial scrutiny by establishing a three-month deadline for granting assent to Bills.

The situation intensified when Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar criticized the judiciary, likening Article 142 to a 'nuclear missile' wielded by the judiciary against democratic institutions.