• President Droupadi Murmu has posed 14 questions to the Supreme Court over its April 8 verdict that fixed timelines for Governors and the President to act on Bills passed by state Assemblies.

• Article 143 is rarely invoked, as it is reserved for matters of profound constitutional or national importance.

• Exercising her power under Article 143(1), President Murmu said in the present circumstances, it appears that the following questions of law have arisen and they are of such nature and public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court of India thereon.

• The referral, a rare exercise of presidential prerogative, seeks the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion on matters of profound constitutional significance, particularly the judiciary’s authority to prescribe timelines for the President’s actions.

• The Centre has resorted to the presidential reference instead of seeking a review of the verdict, which has evoked sharp reactions in the political spectrum.

• Rules prescribe for review petitions to be heard by the same set of judges in the Supreme Court in chambers, while Presidential references are heard and considered by a five-judge Constitution bench.

• The Supreme Court, however, may choose to refuse to answer any or all of the questions raised in the reference.

What was the verdict about?

• The judgment came in response to a petition filed by the Tamil Nadu government, which challenged the Governor’s prolonged delay in granting assent to 10 Bills that had been re-passed by the state Assembly, as well as his subsequent move to reserve them for Presidential consideration. 

• On April 8, the Supreme Court cleared 10 Bills which were stalled and reserved by Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi for President’s consideration.

• The Supreme Court held that Governors cannot sit over Bills passed by the state legislature.

• It set a timeline for all Governors to act on the Bills passed by the state Assemblies and ruled that a Governor does not possess any discretion in exercise of functions under Article 200 of the Constitution in respect to any Bill presented to them and must mandatorily abide by the advice tendered by the council of ministers.

• A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan said the expression “as soon as possible” permeates Article 200 with a sense of expediency, and does not allow the Governor to sit on the Bills and exercise pocket veto over them. 

• Article 200 of the Constitution empowers the Governor to give assent to Bills presented to him, withhold the assent or to reserve it for the consideration of the President.

• The SC bench urged the President to decide within three months of receiving a Bill from a Governor as it laid down such a timeline for the first time. It asked that the President’s office convey reasons to the concerned state if there is any delay beyond this period.

• The verdict holds importance as several opposition-ruled states such as Kerala, Punjab, Telangana and West Bengal have approached the Supreme Court against delay in giving assent by Governors to Bills passed by the respective state Assemblies.

• The Supreme Court exercised its plenary power under Article 142 of the Constitution to make the Bill re-presented to the Tamil Nadu Governor, as deemed to have been passed.

Article 143(1)

Article 143(1) of the Constitution deals with the power of the President to consult the Supreme Court.

The provision says, “If at any time it appears to the President that a question of law or fact has arisen, or is likely to arise, which is of such a nature and of such public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court upon it, he may refer the question to that Court for consideration and the Court may, after such hearing as it thinks fit, report to the President its opinion thereon”.

President refers 14 questions to the Supreme Court

• In a five-page reference, President Murmu referred 14 questions to the Supreme Court and sought to know its opinion on powers of Governor, President under Article 200 and 201 in dealing with bills passed by the state legislature.

• Article 200 deals with situations with regard to passage of Bills by the state Assembly and subsequent options available to the Governor on grant of assent, or withholding of assent or sending the Bill to President for reconsideration.

• Article 201 deals with the Bills reserved for the President’s consideration by the Governor.

The questions posed by the President are:

1) What are the constitutional options before a Governor when a Bill is presented to him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?

2) Is the Governor bound by the aid and 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?

3) Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India justiciable?

4) Is Article 361 of the Constitution of India an absolute bar to judicial review in relation to the actions of a Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?  

5) 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?

6) Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the President under Article 201 of the Constitution of India justiciable?  

7) 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?

8) 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?  

9) 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?  

10) 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?

11) 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?  

12) In view of the proviso to Article 145(3) of the Constitution of India, is it not mandatory for any bench of this 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?

13) Are 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? 

14) 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?

Manorama Yearbook app is now available on Google Play Store and iOS App Store