President Droupadi Murmu has recently engaged the Supreme Court of India, questioning the constitutional validity of setting deadlines for Governors and the President to decide on state bills. This move comes after the Supreme Court's April 8 verdict, which fixed timelines for Governors and the President to act on state bills, a decision made in response to delays in assenting to bills by the Tamil Nadu Governor.
President Murmu invoked Article 143(1) of the Constitution, seeking the Supreme Court's opinion on 14 questions, asserting that the Constitution does not prescribe any timeframe for presidential action once a bill is presented for assent. She raised concerns about the court's overreach and deemed the concept of "deemed assent" as alien to the constitutional framework. According to the President, Articles 200 and 201, which apply to Governors and the President respectively, lack stipulations regarding timelines or procedures for granting or refusing assent to bills passed by a state assembly. She emphasized that the discretion exercised by Governors and the President under these articles is governed by "polycentric considerations," including federalism, uniformity of laws, national integrity, and the doctrine of separation of powers.
The Supreme Court's April 8 verdict prescribed specific timelines for Governors, including one month for withholding assent, three months for withholding assent contrary to the advice of the State Cabinet, and one month for bills presented for reconsideration. The court also set a three-month deadline for the President to decide on bills reserved for consideration by the Governor. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, asserted that Governors must act on the aid and advice of the council of ministers, without independent discretion, and cannot indefinitely delay action on bills. The court also clarified that there is no concept of "absolute veto" or "pocket veto" available to the Governors.
The President's reference raises critical questions about the balance of power between the executive and the judiciary, and the extent to which courts can impose timelines on constitutional authorities when the Constitution itself is silent. The Supreme Court has in the past held conflicting views on the justiciability of presidential assent to bills, prompting the President to seek clarity on the matter. The court's recent ruling was triggered by Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi's delay in assenting to 10 bills, which the court termed "erroneous in law". The court emphasized that Governors are constitutional heads and not political actors, and their actions should not obstruct the legislative process.
The Supreme Court's imposition of timelines on Governors and the President aims to curb the misuse of gubernatorial powers and ensure accountability in constitutional governance. The court has clarified that while Article 200 does not specify a time limit, this silence cannot be interpreted as a license for indefinite inaction. The Supreme Court has also stated that any delay or misuse of discretion by the Governor is subject to judicial review.
This move by President Murmu highlights the ongoing tensions between the judiciary and the executive, particularly concerning the powers of Governors in states. The Supreme Court's opinion on the matter will have significant implications for Centre-State relations and the functioning of Indian democracy.
