The Supreme Court has delivered conflicting judgements on whether the President’s assent under Article 201 is subject to judicial review. By raising questions, the President seeks clarity on the constitutional boundaries of executive and judicial authority.
In a strong response to the Supreme Court’s April 8 judgement that set deadlines for the Governor and the President to act on state bills, President Droupadi Murmu has firmly challenged the constitutional validity of such a directive. The President’s rebuttal stated that the Constitution does not prescribe any specific time frame for the Governor or the President to grant or withhold assent to bills passed by state legislatures.
President Murmu referred to Article 200 of the Constitution, which outlines the Governor’s powers regarding assent to bills, including the option to grant, withhold, or reserve the bill for the President’s consideration. She pointed out that the Article does not impose any timeline for the Governor to act upon these options. Likewise, Article 201, which governs the President’s decision-making authority on such bills, does not lay down any procedural deadlines either.
President Murmu further emphasised that the Constitution allows for several situations where Presidential assent is a prerequisite for state laws to take effect. She highlighted that the discretionary powers granted to the Governor and the President under Articles 200 and 201 are influenced by broader constitutional values such as federalism, national security, legal uniformity, and the separation of powers.
Adding to the complexity, the Supreme Court has delivered conflicting judgments on whether the President’s assent under Article 201 is subject to judicial review. States frequently approach the Supreme Court under Article 32–rather than Article 131–raising federal questions that inherently require constitutional interpretation, states the president’s response. The scope of Article 142, particularly in matters governed by constitutional or statutory provisions, also calls for a Supreme Court opinion. The concept of “deemed assent” for the Governor or President contradicts the constitutional framework, fundamentally restricting their discretionary authority.
Given these unresolved legal concerns and prevailing circumstances, President Murmu has invoked Article 143(1) of the Constitution, referring critical questions to the Supreme Court for its opinion. These include:
- What are the constitutional options available to a Governor when presented with a Bill under Article 200?
- Is the Governor bound by the advice of the Council of Ministers in exercising these options?
- Is the Governor’s exercise of discretion under Article 200 subject to judicial review?
- Does Article 361 impose an absolute bar on judicial scrutiny of a Governor’s actions under Article 200?
- Can courts impose deadlines and prescribe procedures for Governors to follow when exercising their powers under Article 200, despite the absence of constitutional timelines?
- Is the President’s discretion under Article 201 subject to judicial review?
- Can courts set timelines and procedural requirements for the President’s exercise of discretion under Article 201?
- Must the President seek a Supreme Court opinion under Article 143 when deciding on Bills reserved by the Governor?
- Are decisions made by the Governor and President under Articles 200 and 201 justiciable before a law officially comes into force?
- Can the judiciary modify or override constitutional powers exercised by the President or Governor through Article 142?
- Does a state law come into effect without the Governor’s assent under Article 200?
- Must any bench of the Supreme Court first determine whether a case involves substantial constitutional interpretation and refer it to a five-judge bench under Article 145(3)?
- Do Supreme Court powers under Article 142 extend beyond procedural matters to issuing directives that contradict existing constitutional or statutory provisions?
- Does the Constitution allow the Supreme Court to resolve disputes between the Union and state governments through any means other than a suit under Article 131?
By posing these questions, President Murmu seeks greater clarity to the constitutional limits of executive and judicial powers, while underscoring the importance of judicial interpretation in issues of national importance.
(With inputs from ANI)
ALSO READ: Supreme Court prescribes 3-month deadline for President’s decision on bills reserved by Governor
