India

President Murmu Flags Judicial Overreach; Asks Can Timelines Be Imposed On Assent Of Bills

A month after the Supreme Court set timelines for the President and Governors to act on state Bills, President Droupadi Murmu has approached the top court for clarity. President Murmu invoked Article 143 of the Constitution, seeking its opinion on whether courts can impose deadlines on Governors for clearing Bills.

Under Article 143, the President may consult the Supreme Court on legal or public importance matters. Murmu questioned whether a Governor must act on the advice of the Council of Ministers under Article 200. She also asked if a Governor’s discretion is justiciable, citing Article 361, which grants immunity to the President and Governors from court proceedings over their official actions.

The President further asked whether, in the absence of a specific timeline, the court can prescribe deadlines or a manner of exercising discretion under Article 201 of the Constitution.

In April, Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan resolved a standoff between Tamil Nadu’s DMK government and Governor RN Ravi. The bench called the Governor’s refusal to clear 10 Bills “illegal and arbitrary” and gave a three-month deadline for action on re-passed Bills.

The ruling stated that the President should consult the court on constitutional matters. It noted that while courts avoid political issues, they may intervene when a Bill threatens democratic principles or raises constitutional doubts.

Court Asserts Executive Cannot Judge Bill’s Validity

The court clarified that only constitutional courts can assess a Bill’s legality. The Union executive should not judge a Bill’s constitutionality and should refer legal doubts to the court under Article 143.

The court acknowledged its advisory opinions are non-binding. However, it said these opinions carry weight unless outweighed by policy grounds. If the President withholds assent against court advice, the decision must be backed by strong reasons.

The Supreme Court will now decide whether to form a Constitution bench or stand by the earlier two-judge ruling. This development comes as Chief Justice BR Gavai assumes office.

Also Read: Trump Says India Is Offering Us A Zero Tariff Trade Deal

Ajaypal Choudhary

Recent Posts

Dr Rajeshwar Singh Slams Congress Over Rss Ban Remark, Calls It An Attack On India’s Soul

Rajeshwar Singh said RSS had consistently stood for the nation’s service, security, and cultural identity.…

52 mins ago

EAM Jaishankar Reiterates India’s Right To Defend Against Terrorism, Asks Quad Understanding

Jaishankar called for “zero tolerance” towards terrorism, stressing that “victims and perpetrators must never be…

2 hours ago

Muslim Politics: A Wave Of Empowerment Or A New Mask Of Political Bargaining?

If the Muslim community truly wishes to empower itself, it must first abandon the belief…

2 hours ago

Without EV Subsidies, Musk To Close Up Shop, Head Back Home To South Africa: Trump

Trump claimed Musk received more subsidies than any person in history and may have to…

3 hours ago

On Dalai Lama’s 90th Birthday, Spiritual Leaders Unite For Peace And Dialogue

Jain Muni Acharya Lokesh Muni said “War and violence are not the solution to any…

3 hours ago

India’s ₹48.2 Lakh Crore Tax Surge Reflects Economic Transformation: Dr Rajeshwar Singh

Dr Singh stated that this rise shows strong public trust, transparent governance, and effective policy…

3 hours ago