The Supreme Court of India will on Thursday deliver its opinion on a crucial Presidential Reference that raises 14 major constitutional questions about the powers of the President and Governors when dealing with state bills. These questions focus on timelines for granting assent and whether courts can set limits when the Constitution remains silent. A Constitution Bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice PS Narasimha, and Justice AS Chandurkar heard the matter in September and reserved its opinion.
What Is the Matter About?
The issue arose after a landmark judgment in April 2024, when the Supreme Court allowed the Tamil Nadu government to notify 10 bills that Governor RN Ravi had withheld without approval. The court ruled that the Governor’s action of reserving the bills for the President was “illegal and erroneous.” The court further said that when a Governor sends a bill to the President, the President must decide within three months, because unlimited delays leave bills in “indefinite and uncertain abeyance.” This ruling effectively introduced a timeline that does not explicitly exist in the Constitution. Following this, President Droupadi Murmu invoked Article 143, seeking the Supreme Court’s advice on a key question: “When the Constitution does not specify timelines for assent, how can the Court impose one?”
Why This Matters?
Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution lay down how Governors and the President handle bills passed by state legislatures. But these articles do not specify any deadline for giving or withholding assent. This has led to long delays in several states, resulting in confrontation between Governors and elected governments. The Court’s opinion on the Presidential Reference is expected to clarify the limits of gubernatorial and presidential discretion.
What Are The 14 Constitutional Questions Before the Supreme Court?
The President has formally asked the Supreme Court to answer the following 14 questions:
- What can a Governor legally do when a Bill is presented under Article 200?
- Is the Governor bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers while acting under Article 200?
- Can the Governor’s use of discretion under Article 200 be reviewed by courts?
- Does Article 361 bar judicial review of a Governor’s actions under Article 200?
- Can courts impose timelines for the Governor’s decisions when the Constitution does not?
- Can courts review the President’s discretion under Article 201?
- Can courts impose timelines for the President’s decisions under Article 201?
- Must the President seek the Supreme Court’s advice under Article 143 when a bill is reserved for assent?
- Can courts review the Governor’s or President’s decisions before a bill becomes law?
- Can courts substitute or override Presidential/Gubernatorial powers under Article 142?
- Can a state law come into force without the Governor’s assent under Article 200?
- Is it mandatory for any Supreme Court bench to refer substantial constitutional questions to a five-judge bench under Article 145(3)?
- Do Article 142 powers allow the Court to pass orders contrary to existing law?
- Is Article 131 the only route for resolving Union-State disputes in the Supreme Court?
What Happens Next?
The Supreme Court’s opinion will have a major impact on the balance of power between Governors and state governments. It could also redefine how long constitutional authorities can delay decisions on state legislation. The verdict is expected to bring clarity to a long-standing area of constitutional ambiguity one that has been at the centre of political tensions across several states.
