President-Murmu-Invokes-Article-143
Introduction: A Rare Use of Article 143
In a rare and constitutionally significant development, President Droupadi Murmu has invoked Article 143(1) of the Indian Constitution, seeking the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion on 14 vital questions. These queries primarily concern the powers of the President and Governors when granting or withholding assent to bills passed by state legislatures, especially in cases where the Constitution does not prescribe a specific timeline for action.
The President’s move comes in the wake of an April 8 judgment by the Supreme Court that addressed the issue of delay by Governors and provided judicially imposed timelines for acting on state legislation.
Backdrop: Supreme Court’s April 8 Judgment
The immediate context for the presidential reference is rooted in the Supreme Court’s verdict in a case brought by the Tamil Nadu Government, challenging the Governor’s inaction and subsequent referral of 10 bills to the President. These bills had been re-passed by the State Legislature in identical form after initially being withheld.
In a landmark 415-page judgment, the Supreme Court held the Governor’s actions as illegal and unconstitutional and exercised its powers under Article 142 to grant “deemed assent” to the bills—an unprecedented step bypassing the Governor.
Key highlights of the judgment included:
- Time limits for Governors to grant or withhold assent under Article 200.
- Three-month deadline for the President to act under Article 201.
- A requirement that the President seek advisory opinion under Article 143 if a bill appears “patently unconstitutional”.
The 14 Questions Referred by the President to the Supreme Court
To address lingering constitutional ambiguities, President Murmu has formally referred the following 14 legal questions to the apex court:
- What are the options available to a Governor under Article 200 when presented with a bill?
- Is the Governor bound by the advice of the Council of Ministers under Article 200?
- Is the Governor’s discretion under Article 200 justiciable in courts?
- Does Article 361 bar judicial review of a Governor’s actions under Article 200?
- Can courts impose timelines or prescribe the manner of exercising powers under Article 200?
- Is the President’s discretion under Article 201 justiciable?
- Can courts impose timelines for the President under Article 201 where none exist in the Constitution?
- Is the President required to seek Supreme Court’s advice under Article 143 when a Governor refers a bill?
- Are the actions of the President and Governor justiciable before a bill becomes law?
- Can presidential or gubernatorial powers be substituted by the Supreme Court under Article 142?
- Does a bill become law without the Governor’s assent under Article 200?
- Must the Supreme Court refer constitutional interpretation cases to a five-judge bench under Article 145(3)?
- Do Article 142 powers extend beyond procedural matters to contradict existing laws or constitutional provisions?
- Is Article 131 the only route for resolving Union-State disputes in the Supreme Court?
Why This Matters: Federalism and Constitutional Clarity
This development is pivotal for several reasons:
- Clarification of executive-legislative relationships at the state level.
- Accountability of constitutional authorities like the Governor and President in the legislative process.
- Strengthening of cooperative federalism by reducing friction between state and central authorities.
- Judicial oversight over discretionary constitutional powers.
The outcome of this reference will likely have far-reaching consequences on the balance of power between the states and the Centre, and on how constitutional conventions are interpreted in the absence of express legal provisions.
Conclusion
The President’s invocation of Article 143 places the Supreme Court at the heart of resolving a major constitutional issue—how to balance discretion, accountability, and efficiency in the federal law-making process. As the Court deliberates on these 14 questions, the nation awaits greater clarity on the roles of the Governor and President in the legislative process, especially concerning timeliness and judicial review.
Read Also: CLAT-UG 2025 Revised Results to Be Published Soon After Supreme Court’s Final Order Upload
