In a significant and unprecedented move, President Droupadi Murmu has referred 14 constitutional questions to the Supreme Court of India under Article 143, igniting a high-stakes legal debate on the separation of powers, federalism, and constitutional accountability. At the heart of this reference lies a critical question: Can the judiciary impose timelines on the President (and Governors) to decide on bills sent for assent under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution when no such timelines are explicitly mentioned in the Constitution?
This comes in the wake of the Tamil Nadu Governor-Bill Assent controversy, where the Supreme Court took a bold step by declaring that ten legislative bills, long delayed by the Governor, were “deemed to have received assent.” The Court’s landmark ruling on April 8 challenged conventional understandings of gubernatorial discretion and executive delay, prompting the President to seek clarity through a formal judicial reference—one that may permanently reshape the balance between India’s legislative and executive powers.
⚖️ Article 143: A Rare and Powerful Tool
Article 143 of the Indian Constitution empowers the President to refer questions of law or fact of public importance to the Supreme Court for its advisory opinion. Though such references are rare, they carry immense weight—especially when the opinion touches on constitutional interpretation with far-reaching implications.
Here, the President’s 14-point reference centers around the constitutional legitimacy, limits, and justiciability of discretionary powers exercised by Governors under Article 200 and by the President under Article 201—especially when such powers are exercised in the absence of constitutionally prescribed timelines.
🧩 The Tamil Nadu Trigger: Delayed Assent Sparks Legal Debate
This constitutional conundrum finds its roots in the Tamil Nadu crisis, where Governor R.N. Ravi delayed action on 10 state bills, with some pending since as far back as January 2020. When the bills were re-passed by the Assembly and sent back, the Governor referred them to the President under Article 200, effectively creating a legislative deadlock.
The Supreme Court intervened, calling the delay “unconstitutional and illegal,” and held that such long inaction amounts to deemed assent—a legal fiction not explicitly grounded in the constitutional text. This judicial innovation, while practically necessary, has stirred serious questions about the scope of judicial review, legislative authority, and constitutional discretion.
🧠 The 14 Questions: Unpacking a Constitutional Puzzle
Here’s a closer look at some of the most critical constitutional questions the President has asked the Supreme Court:
- What options does a Governor have when presented with a Bill under Article 200?
This question goes to the root of gubernatorial discretion—should it be absolute or bounded by time and ministerial advice? - Is the Governor bound by the advice of the Council of Ministers in all cases?
The answer could affect executive accountability and state autonomy, both critical in a federal setup. - Can courts impose timelines on Governors or Presidents to act on Bills in the absence of explicit timelines in the Constitution?
This probes the limits of judicial activism and the role of the Court in managing political or legislative impasses. - Is the discretionary power under Articles 200 and 201 justiciable?
If yes, it opens the door to more court scrutiny of executive inaction. - Does Article 361 protect Governors and Presidents from judicial review in these contexts?
A key question on constitutional immunity and the reach of the judiciary. - Can courts substitute Presidential or gubernatorial orders under Article 142?
This challenges whether the Court’s powers can override constitutional silence on procedures or timeframes. - Does “deemed assent” exist in the constitutional scheme?
The President has termed this concept “alien” to the Constitution—raising the core concern of judicial overreach into executive turf.
🧭 The Stakes: Federalism, Judicial Review, and Institutional Balance
This case is not just a legal formality—it could redefine how India’s federal structure functions. If the Supreme Court affirms that timelines can be judicially imposed, it may reduce executive arbitrariness and protect legislative intent. On the other hand, the Court must tread carefully to avoid being seen as encroaching on executive domain or rewriting constitutional text.
The President’s reference also seeks clarity on Article 145(3) and whether certain constitutional questions must mandatorily be heard by a Constitution Bench of five or more judges, ensuring that these far-reaching issues receive collective institutional wisdom.
🔍 Why This Matters to Law Students and Legal Practitioners
This case could become a cornerstone in Indian constitutional law—on par with Kesavananda Bharati, S.R. Bommai, or Nabam Rebia. For law students, it’s a masterclass in constitutional interpretation, federalism, separation of powers, and judicial innovation. For practicing lawyers, it opens up new jurisprudential paths on justiciability, executive accountability, and democratic governance.
Whether you argue in court, advise clients, or write policy, the Court’s eventual advisory opinion under Article 143 will likely set a new precedent for decades to come.
#Article143 #SupremeCourtIndia #GovernorAssent #IndianConstitution #JudicialReview #PresidentReference #DeemedAssent #LawStudentsIndia #FederalismInIndia #IndianLawBlog #ConstitutionalDebate #SCReferenceCase
Source: https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/master-civil-law-indias-premier-legal-edutech-platform-290117
lawrota.com 
Leave a comment