President Droupadi Murmu has raised serious concerns over the Supreme Court’s ruling issued on April 8, 2025, which mandates fixed timeframes for Governors and the President to decide on bills presented before them. The order, which emerged from the Tamil Nadu Government vs Governor case, sparked intense debate as it questioned the discretionary powers of constitutional heads.
The President stated that the Indian Constitution contains no provision empowering the judiciary to impose such deadlines, and asked on what constitutional basis the Supreme Court could do so. In a rare move, President Murmu formally sought clarification from the apex court on the interpretation of powers under Articles 200 and 201, and the extent of judicial intervention permissible in these matters.
Background of the Dispute
In its April 8 ruling, the Supreme Court had declared that:
- Governors do not possess veto power over state legislation.
- The President must take a decision on a reserved bill within three months.
- In case of delay, a valid explanation must be given to the concerned state.
- If a bill returned by the President is repassed by the state assembly, the President is constitutionally obliged to make a final decision.
- Decisions under Article 201 can be subjected to judicial review.
- The court can legally examine any bill if the Governor acted contrary to the advice of the Council of Ministers.
President’s 14 Questions to the Supreme Court
President Murmu has now sought answers from the Supreme Court on 14 key constitutional questions, including:
- What are the Governor’s options under Article 200 when a bill is presented?
- Is the Governor bound by the advice of the Council of Ministers?
- Can decisions under Article 200 be judicially reviewed?
- Does Article 361 shield these decisions from judicial scrutiny?
- Can courts fix deadlines for decisions when the Constitution is silent on timeframes?
- Is judicial review applicable to decisions made under Article 201?
- Can courts impose time limits on the President under Article 201?
- Should the Supreme Court’s advisory jurisdiction under Article 143 be invoked when a bill is reserved?
- Can courts pre-emptively hear challenges to such decisions before they take effect?
- Can the Supreme Court, under Article 142, alter constitutional powers of the President or Governor?
- Can a state government enforce a law without the Governor’s assent under Article 200?
- Should Article 145(3) be invoked to refer such matters to a constitutional bench of five judges?
- Can the Supreme Court issue directions inconsistent with the Constitution or existing laws?
- Does Article 131 allow only the Supreme Court to adjudicate Centre-State disputes?
These pointed queries reflect growing tension between the executive and judiciary over the limits of constitutional authority and judicial activism. Legal experts anticipate that these issues may lead to a larger constitutional bench review in the coming months.
