‘Assent To Bills’: SC Agrees To Examine Prez Murmu’s 14 Questions On Timelines For Guv, Prez

In a move that could have far-reaching implications for the balance of power in India’s federal structure, the Supreme Court has agreed to consider a set of 14 constitutional questions referred by President Droupadi Murmu.

These questions stem from the Court’s April 8 judgment that imposed timelines for Governors and the President to act on bills passed by state legislatures.

Constitution Bench Formed To Examine Key Legal Issues

A five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, along with Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha, and A.S. Chandurkar, will hear the matter. The bench will meet on July 29 to finalize the hearing schedule, with proceedings expected to begin in mid-August.

The reference was made under Article 143 of the Constitution, which empowers the President to consult the Supreme Court on questions of law or fact of public importance. President Murmu noted that the issues raised “are of such nature and public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court.”

Background: The April 8 Verdict

The Court’s April judgment clarified that Governors cannot delay or reject state bills arbitrarily and must act within a reasonable timeframe based on the advice of the state’s council of ministers. It also permitted state governments to approach the Supreme Court if the President withheld assent to a bill reserved for consideration.

The ruling made it clear that decisions based on a Governor’s personal dissatisfaction, political motives, or irrelevant grounds would be unconstitutional and subject to judicial review.

The President’s 14 Constitutional Questions

The questions referred to the Court for its opinion 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 Governor bound by the aid and advice of 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 Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India justiciable?

4. Is Article 361 of the Constitution of India an absolute bar to judicially review in relation to the actions of 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 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 Governor?

6. Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by 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 President, can timelines be imposed and the manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of discretion by President under Article 201 of the Constitution of India?

8. In light of the constitutional scheme governing the powers of President, is 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 Governor reserves a bill for President’s assent or otherwise?

9. Are decisions of Governor and 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 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 Governor granted under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?

12. In view of the proviso to Article 145 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. … 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?

A Case with National Significance

This reference could significantly redefine the powers and limits of constitutional authorities in India. With issues concerning legislative procedure, federal relations, and judicial review at stake, the Court’s opinion is expected to set important precedents for future governance.

Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International