President Droupadi Murmu has invoked Article 143(1) of the Indian Constitution to seek the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion on its April 8 ruling that imposed deadlines for the President and state Governors to grant assent to bills passed by state legislatures. This rare constitutional move involves 14 questions challenging the judiciary’s authority to set such timelines and the concept of “deemed assent” if deadlines are not met.

The Supreme Court’s April 8 decision arose from a case involving the Tamil Nadu government, where the Court deemed the Governor’s delay in assenting to ten bills as “illegal and arbitrary,” setting a three-month deadline for action. President Murmu’s reference questions whether such judicially imposed deadlines infringe upon the discretionary powers granted to the President and Governors under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution, which do not specify timeframes for granting assent.

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin criticized the Presidential reference, viewing it as an attempt to undermine judicial authority and delay the implementation of state legislation, particularly in opposition-ruled states.

Legal experts note that while Article 143(1) allows the President to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion on questions of law or fact of public importance, such opinions are advisory and not binding. The Supreme Court has, in the past, declined to answer references that effectively sought a review of its prior judgments.

The Supreme Court is expected to constitute a Constitution Bench to deliberate on the reference, which could have significant implications for the balance of powers among India’s constitutional authorities.

Sources