President Murmu Invokes Article 143; Seeks Judicial Opinion On Governor’s Bill Assent Powers

In a significant constitutional move, President Droupadi Murmu has asked the Supreme Court under Article 143 whether courts can impose timelines on Governors for acting on Bills passed by state legislatures.

The reference follows the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in the Tamil Nadu Bills case, which criticised the prolonged delay by Governor RN Ravi in assenting to ten state Bills.

The President has specifically asked the Supreme Court to examine whether Article 200 of the Constitution binds the Governor to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.

She also sought clarity on whether such actions by the Governor are open to judicial scrutiny, despite the immunity granted under Article 361, which shields the Governor’s actions from judicial review.

The reference further asks whether courts can impose timelines and oversight on the President’s discretionary power under Article 201 in the absence of explicit constitutional deadlines.

Backdrop Of The Tamil Nadu Bills Case

The matter stems from the Supreme Court’s landmark April ruling that resolved a constitutional impasse between the Tamil Nadu government and its Governor.

A two-judge Bench, invoking its special powers under Article 142, held that Governor Ravi’s inaction on ten Bills was both ‘illegal and arbitrary’.

The court directed that once a Bill is re-passed by the legislature and presented again to the Governor, it must not be reserved for Presidential assent.

The Bench, led by Justice JB Pardiwala, mandated a three-month deadline for the President to decide on such Bills, stating that inaction beyond this timeframe would justify legal intervention by the state.

Bringing Presidential Discretion Under Judicial Lens

President Murmu’s move seeks further clarity on how far judicial review can extend in matters involving constitutional discretion.

Her questions reflect the broader implications of the Supreme Court’s judgment, which effectively brought Presidential and gubernatorial discretion into the domain of judicial scrutiny.

The judgment also required the President to provide reasons for decisions on Bills and to share those reasons with the respective state governments.

The development has triggered political and constitutional debates.

Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar criticised the judiciary’s use of Article 142, describing it as a ‘nuclear missile’ against democratic forces- a comment that underscores the growing tension between different arms of government.

With the apex court now set to consider President Murmu’s reference, the outcome could reshape the relationship between the executive and the legislature and clarify the constitutional expectations from Governors and the President in India’s federal structure.

Also Read: MRM Backs ‘Operation Sindoor’; Warns Enemies Of India’s New Security Resolve