NEW DELHI, May 15: President Droupadi Murmu has formally sought the Supreme Court’s opinion on 14 legal questions stemming from its landmark April 8 verdict that imposed strict deadlines on the President and Governors for taking decisions on Bills passed by state legislatures.
The President’s query was made under Article 143 of the Constitution, which empowers the President to consult the apex court on questions of law or fact of public importance.
The move follows the Supreme Court’s unprecedented ruling last month which curtailed the discretionary power of the President under Article 201, mandating that a decision must be made within three months on any Bill reserved for Presidential consideration.
In its verdict, a Bench led by Justice JB Pardiwala and also comprising Justice R Mahadevan, ruled:
“The President is required to take a decision on the Bills reserved for his consideration by the Governor within a period of three months from the date on which such reference is received. In case of any delay beyond this period, appropriate reasons would have to be recorded and conveyed to the concerned State.”
The court further held that if the President failed to act within the stipulated timeframe, the concerned state government could seek a writ of mandamus — a judicial order compelling action.
The President has now asked the top court to clarify the extent of her constitutional discretion, especially in light of the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Article 142, which grants it wide-ranging powers to ensure “complete justice.”
Among the questions posed is whether Article 142 allows the Court to override or alter the Constitution’s substantive or procedural provisions, or whether its authority is limited to procedural gaps only.
In its April 8 judgment, the Court had also invoked Article 142 to declare that 10 Bills would be deemed to have received the Governor’s assent, as they were passed again by the legislature and then re-presented to the Governor, who failed to act on them.
Legal observers suggest the President’s move signals concern over a potential imbalance in constitutional functioning, particularly regarding the interplay between the executive’s discretion and the judiciary’s interpretive powers.
The Supreme Court’s response to this reference under Article 143 will likely shape future dynamics between the Union and states, and could redefine the contours of executive and judicial authority in the legislative process.
