President Murmu’s Reference to the Honourable Honourable Supreme Court of India: A Constitutional Inquiry into Bill Assent Timelines
“Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”
Winston S Churchill, 11 November 1947
On May 13, 2025, President Droupadi Murmu invoked Article 143(1) of the Constitution of India to seek the Honourable Supreme Court’s advisory opinion on a series of critical constitutional questions. This reference was prompted by the Honourable Supreme Court’s April 8, 2025, ruling in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu, which set unprecedented timelines for Governors and the President to act on Bills passed by state legislatures. The ruling also declared the actions of Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi as “illegal and erroneous” for reserving 10 Bills for presidential consideration after they were reconsidered by the state Assembly. President Murmu’s 14-point reference raises fundamental questions about the justiciability of gubernatorial and presidential actions, the judiciary’s power to impose timelines, and the scope of judicial review under the Constitution. This article delves into the constitutional provisions, the Honourable Supreme Court’s ruling, the questions posed by the President, and relevant case laws that shape this debate.
BACKGROUND: THE TAMIL NADU BILLS CASE
In April 2025, a two-judge bench of the Honourable Supreme Court, comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, delivered a landmark judgment in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu. The case arose from a standoff between the Tamil Nadu government and Governor R.N. Ravi, who withheld assent to 10 Bills, some pending since January 2020. After the state Assembly reconsidered and re-passed these Bills, the Governor reserved them for the President’s consideration, an action the Honourable Supreme Court deemed unconstitutional.
THE COURT RULED THAT:
- The Governor’s prolonged inaction and subsequent reservation of re-passed Bills violated Article 200 of the Constitution.
- Governors must act “as soon as possible” on Bills, and a three-month timeline was prescribed for Governors to grant assent, return, or reserve Bills.
- If a Bill is re-passed by the Assembly, the Governor must grant assent within one month and cannot reserve it for the President unless it differs significantly from the original version.
- The President must decide on Bills reserved by the Governor within three months, with reasons recorded for any delay.
- Using its powers under Article 142, the Court declared “deemed assent” for the 10 Bills, effectively bypassing the Governor’s inaction.
This judgment sparked controversy, with critics, including Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar and Attorney General R. Venkataramani, arguing that it encroached on the constitutional discretion of the President and Governors. President Murmu’s reference under Article 143(1) seeks to clarify whether such judicial interventions align with the constitutional framework.
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS IN FOCUS
1. Article 200: Governor’s Powers over Bills
2. Article 200 outlines the options available to a Governor when a Bill is presented:
GRANT ASSENT TO THE BILL
- Withhold assent, returning the Bill (except Money Bills) to the Assembly with a message for reconsideration
- Reserve the Bill for the President’s consideration, particularly if it derogates the powers of the High Court or involves significant constitutional issues.
- The phrase “as soon as possible” in Article 200 implies expediency but does not specify a timeline. The Honourable Supreme Court in the Tamil Nadu case interpreted this phrase to justify a three-month deadline, drawing on the Sarkaria and Punchhi Commission recommendations.
ARTICLE 201: PRESIDENT’S ROLE IN RESERVED BILLS
Article 201 governs Bills reserved by the Governor for the President’s consideration. The President may:
• Assent to the Bill.
• Withhold assent.
• Direct the Governor to return the Bill to the Assembly for reconsideration.
Like Article 200, Article 201 does not prescribe a timeline, leaving the President’s discretion unbound by statutory limits. The Honourable Supreme Court’s imposition of a three-month deadline and the requirement to record reasons for delays introduced a novel constraint on this discretion.
ARTICLE 143: ADVISORY JURISDICTION
- Article 143(1) empowers the President to seek the Honourable Supreme Court’s opinion on questions of law or fact of public importance. While advisory opinions are not binding, they carry significant weight. President Murmu’s reference leverages this provision to seek clarity on the judiciary’s role in regulating executive actions under Articles 200 and 201.
ARTICLE 361: IMMUNITY OF PRESIDENT AND GOVERNORS
- Article 361 grants immunity to the President and Governors from being answerable to any court for the exercise of their powers and duties. However, this immunity is not absolute, as courts have historically reviewed actions that exceed constitutional bounds.
ARTICLE 142: COMPLETE JUSTICE
- Article 142 empowers the Honourable Supreme Court to pass orders necessary for “complete justice.” In the Tamil Nadu case, the Court used this provision to declare “deemed assent” for the 10 Bills, raising questions about whether such orders can override constitutional powers of the President and Governors.
PRESIDENT MURMU’S 14 QUESTIONS:
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 & 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 the 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 Honourable Supreme Court by way
of a reference under Article 143 of the Constitution of India and take the opinion of the Honourable 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 Hon’ble 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. Do the powers of the Honourable 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 Honourable 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?
PRESIDENT MURMU’S REFERENCE POSES 14 QUESTIONS, WHICH CAN BE GROUPED INTO KEY THEMES:
Justiciability: Are the discretionary actions of the Governor (Article 200) and President (Article 201) subject to judicial review, especially before a Bill becomes law? Does Article 361 bar such review?
Judicial Imposition of Timelines: Can courts impose timelines and prescribe procedures for Governors and the President in the absence of constitutional provisions?
Article 142’s Scope: Can the judiciary use Article 142 to substitute or override the constitutional powers of the President or Governor?
Governor’s Discretion: What are the Governor’s constitutional options under Article 200? Is the Governor bound by the Council of Ministers’ advice?
President’s Obligations: Is the President required to seek Honourable Supreme Court advice under Article 143 for Bills reserved by the Governor?
Federal Disputes: Should disputes between the Centre and states be adjudicated only under Article 131, or can states invoke Article 32 for such issues?
These questions challenge the Honourable Supreme Court’s April ruling and seek to redefine the balance of power between the legislature, executive, and judiciary.
RELEVANT CASE LAWS
1. Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006) 2 SCC 1
In this case, the Honourable Supreme Court clarified that Article 361 does not grant absolute immunity to Governors. The Court held that gubernatorial actions under Article 356 (President’s Rule) are subject to judicial review if they are mala fide,
arbitrary, or unconstitutional. This precedent supports the Tamil Nadu ruling’s assertion that Governor R.N. Ravi’s actions were reviewable, as they violated Article 200’s procedural requirements.
2. Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker (2016) 8 SCC 1
The Honourable Supreme Court ruled that Governors cannot act independently of the Council of Ministers’ advice in most cases, except where the Constitution expressly grants discretion. This case limits the Governor’s discretion under Article 200, suggesting they are generally bound by ministerial advice when granting or withholding assent.
3. A.G. Perarivalan v. State (2022) 6 SCC 233
In this case, the Honourable Supreme Court invoked Article 142 to grant “deemed” relief in a remission matter delayed by the Governor. The Court’s use of Article 142 to bypass executive inaction parallels the Tamil Nadu case’s “deemed assent” remedy, reinforcing the judiciary’s power to ensure justice in cases of constitutional delay.
4. Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal 1993 Supp (1) SCC 96 (II)
The Honourable Supreme Court held that Article 143 cannot be used to seek a review or reversal of its adjudicatory decisions. This precedent suggests that President Murmu’s reference, while framed as a request for clarity, may not lead to the overturning of the Tamil Nadu ruling, as advisory opinions cannot function as appeals.
5. State of Punjab v. Punjab Governor (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1413
In a case addressing delays by the Punjab Governor in assenting to Bills, the Honourable Supreme Court ruled that Governors cannot exercise a “pocket veto” by indefinitely withholding assent. This judgment influenced the Tamil Nadu ruling’s emphasis on timely action under Article 200.
ANALYSIS OF KEY ISSUES
Justiciability and Judicial Review
The Honourable Supreme Court’s Tamil Nadu ruling expanded the scope of judicial review by holding that both gubernatorial (Article 200) and presidential (Article 201) actions are justiciable. The Court relied on Rameshwar Prasad to argue that Article 361 does not shield unconstitutional actions. However, President Murmu’s reference questions whether such review is permissible before a Bill becomes law, as judicial scrutiny at this stage may infringe on the legislative process.
Imposition of Timelines
The absence of timelines in Articles 200 and 201 has historically allowed Governors and the President significant discretion. The Honourable Supreme Court’s three-month deadline, justified by the phrase “as soon as possible” and commission recommendations, introduces a procedural constraint not explicitly provided in the Constitution. President Murmu argues that such judicially imposed timelines may encroach on executive discretion, raising separation of powers concerns.
Article 142 and “Deemed Assent”
The Court’s use of Article 142 to declare “deemed assent” is a bold exercise of judicial power. While A.G. Perarivalan supports such remedies in cases of executive inaction, critics, including Vice President Dhankhar, argue that it undermines the constitutional roles of the President and Governors. The President’s reference questions whether Article 142 can substitute executive functions, a debate that may hinge on the Court’s interpretation of “complete justice.”
Federal Implications
The Tamil Nadu case highlights tensions between Centre-appointed Governors and opposition-ruled states. By setting timelines and enabling states to seek writs of mandamus, the Honourable Supreme Court empowered state governments to challenge executive delays. However, President Murmu’s reference suggests that such disputes should be adjudicated under Article 131 (Centre-state disputes) rather than Article 32, which is typically reserved for fundamental rights violations.
CONCLUSION
President Droupadi Murmu’s reference under Article 143(1) marks a pivotal moment in India’s constitutional jurisprudence. It challenges the Honourable Supreme Court to
reconcile its role as a guardian of federalism with the executive’s constitutional discretion. The Tamil Nadu ruling, while hailed for curbing gubernatorial overreach, has raised
questions about judicial overreach, particularly through the use of Article 142. Case laws like Rameshwar Prasad and A.G. Perarivalan support the judiciary’s power to review
executive actions and remedy delays, but Cauvery Water Disputes limits the scope of Article 143 as a tool for revisiting settled decisions. The Honourable Supreme Court’s advisory opinion, expected to be delivered by a Constitution Bench, will likely clarify the boundaries of justiciability, the propriety of judicially imposed timelines, and the interplay between Articles 142, 200, and 201. Until then, the debate over the balance of power between the judiciary, executive, and legislature remains a critical issue for India’s federal structure.
“I understand democracy as something that gives the weak the same chance as the strong.”
– M K Gandhi
SRIKANTH THAMBAN, ADVOCATE, HIGH COURT OF KERALA
