President Murmu poses 14 critical questions to SC over timelines for bill assent

New Delhi: On the day Justice BR Gavai assumed office as the 52nd Chief Justice of India, President Droupadi Murmu invoked Article 143 of the Constitution to seek the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion on a contentious issue involving the powers of Governors and the President in the legislative process.

The referral poses 14 critical questions, primarily challenging the judiciary’s authority to impose timelines on the President’s discretion to act on bills reserved by Governors.

The issue stems from a landmark Supreme Court ruling on April 8, 2025, by Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, which addressed a dispute between the Tamil Nadu government and Governor RN Ravi. 

The court declared the Governor’s delay in granting assent to 10 bills as “erroneous and illegal,” invoking Article 142 to grant assent to the pending bills. Additionally, the court set a precedent by mandating that the President must decide on bills reserved for her consideration within three months under Article 201, a provision that previously lacked a constitutionally defined timeline.

President Murmu’s reference specifically questions the judiciary’s authority to impose such timelines. One key query reads: “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?” 

This referral, made under Article 143, which allows the President to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion on matters of public importance, reflects ongoing debates about the balance of power in India’s federal structure, a provision debated during the Constitution’s drafting in 1949.

The Tamil Nadu case has been a focal point of Centre-State tensions since 2021, with Governor RN Ravi accused of politically motivated delays. 

According to a Supreme Court Observer report, of the 181 bills submitted to the Governor, 152 received assent, five were withdrawn by the state, nine were reserved for the President’s consideration, and assent was withdrawn from another nine. 

Five bills received in October 2023 remained pending, exacerbating the conflict. 

The April 2025 verdict expanded judicial review, allowing state governments to seek a writ of mandamus to enforce timelines if Governors or the President fail to act within the stipulated period.

The Tamil Nadu government, represented by Senior Advocate AM Singhvi, had argued that the constitutional phrase “as soon as possible” under Article 200, governing a Governor’s duty to act on bills, effectively allowed indefinite delays. 

The Supreme Court, referencing the Sarkaria and Punchhi Commissions’ recommendations, rejected this interpretation and established clear timelines to prevent such obstructions. 

However, Attorney General R Venkataramani, defending the Governor, contended that the President’s decision under Article 201 is non-justiciable, citing precedents like Hoechst Pharmaceuticals v State of Bihar (1983), and warned that imposing timelines could infringe on the President’s discretionary powers.

Justice BR Gavai, who succeeded CJI Sanjiv Khanna on May 14, 2025, steps into this constitutional debate with a reputation for emphasising constitutional supremacy. 

Just before taking office, on May 11, 2025, he stated, “neither executive, parliament nor judiciary, CONSTITUTION IS SUPREME!”

Legal experts anticipate that the Supreme Court’s response to President Murmu’s questions could set a defining precedent for Centre-State relations and the role of Governors in India’s legislative process.