President Droupadi Murmu has asked the Supreme Court of India to rule on a set of 14 issues pertaining to the President and Governor of India’s constitutional rights. This opinion was requested in light of the President’s unique authority granted by Article 143(1) of the Constitution, which grants the President the prerogative to confer with the Supreme Court on significant legal issues.
The President took this action in response to a recent ruling by the Division Bench of Justices B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan of the Supreme Court. According to the Apex Court’s ruling, the Governor and the President have three months to make a decision on the legislation that have been delivered to them in accordance with Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution. Many have questioned the decision because these articles imply a time limit.
Articles 200 and 201: What Are They?
• Article 200: Gives the governor of the state the authority to accept, reject, or forward the specific law to the president for consideration.
• Article 201: Outlines the President’s authority to approve or disapprove state measures that have been referred by the appropriate governor.
It should be noted, nonetheless, that neither of the articles specifies a deadline for the President or the Governors to make a decision about a specific bill. Consequently, the Supreme Court’s ruling on the three-month deadline raised questions.
The President’s Questions Regarding the Supreme Court’s Decision
The Honorable President expressed primary worry about the Supreme Court’s ruling that a bill will be deemed automatically approved (also known as “deemed assent”) if neither the President nor the Governor make a decision on it within three months. According to the Indian Constitution, there is no such thing as automatic approval.
The President’s Questions
The list of inquiries made by the President on the Governors’ Role (Article 200) is mentioned below.
1. What constitutional choices does a governor have under Article 200 when a bill is brought before him?
2. If the Council of Ministers’ advice is binding on the Governor?
3. If it were possible to contest the Governor’s choices in court?
4. Even though Article 361 offers protection against such choices, the courts may nevertheless evaluate the governor’s acts.
Concerning Time Restraints and Judicial Authority
• Does the Court have the authority to set a deadline even if the Constitution doesn’t provide one?
• if the courts have the authority to establish rules governing the conduct of presidents or governors?
Regarding the President’s Role (Article 201)
• If the President’s decisions were subject to judicial challenge?
• if the courts have the authority to impose deadlines on the president’s decisions?
• if the Supreme Court must be consulted before the President makes a decision on a bill that a governor refers?
Concerning the Character of Laws
• If a bill passes the state legislature, even without the governor’s approval, would it become a law?
• Does the Court have the authority to examine a bill before it is signed into law?
Concerning the Court’s Authority (Article 142 and Others)
• If the courts have the authority to overrule or replace the governor’s or president’s decisions?
• Are the Supreme Court’s powers under Article 142 restricted to procedural matters or do they extend beyond the scope of current legislation?
• Does the Supreme Court have the authority to resolve conflicts between the federal and state governments just through Article 131, or are there further options?
The President’s inquiries are significant because they directly address the constitutionally established division of authority between the executive branch (President and Governor) and the judiciary (Supreme Court).
The Origin of the Controversy
A case involving the governor and the Tamil Nadu government sparked the debate. Ten measures had been withheld by the state governor and forwarded to the president for approval. The Supreme Court ruled that the Governor and the President would have three months to consider the bill.
Concerns were raised by the aforementioned Supreme Court ruling since it did not establish a deadline for the President and Governor to exercise their powers and because it was interpreted as changing the Constitution, which is outside the court’s jurisdiction.
The Vice President’s Response
Additionally, Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar has criticized the Supreme Court’s decision. The Vice President reminded the Supreme Court that its authority is restricted to interpreting the Constitution and that it is not permitted to impose new regulations or timelines on previously unexisting provisions.
What Takes Place Next?
• The Supreme Court has directed the creation of a Constitution Bench—a special bench consisting of at least five judges—to address the President’s inquiries.
• For issues pertaining to state legislation, the Bench’s opinions would aid in defining the functions of the President, the Governor, and the Court itself.
You can follow our blog under Sharks of Law or on Instagram and YouTube for further information on the subject or to keep up with related legal developments. You can get in touch with us using the details below if you are involved in a civil or criminal matter and would like to speak with a lawyer online or obtain free legal advice.
Email:-helpdesk@sharksoflaw.com
Help Desk:-+91-88770-01993
https://www.sharksoflaw.com/blog-detail/president-murmu-referred-14-questions-to-sc-over-judiciarys-power-to-set-deadline-for-assent-over-bill