In a significant constitutional development, President Droupadi Murmu has formally questioned the authority of the Supreme Court to set procedural deadlines for Governors and the President in dealing with state legislation. This comes in response to the apex court's April 8, 2025 judgment, which attempted to streamline the process of bill assent by prescribing time limits for constitutional authorities to act under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution.

President Murmu’s detailed reply, submitted as part of official communication to the judiciary, underscored the absence of any constitutional provision mandating time-bound action by the Governor or the President when dealing with bills passed by state legislatures. Her communication serves as a formal constitutional reference under Article 143(1), wherein the President can seek the opinion of the Supreme Court on matters of legal and constitutional significance.

The Constitutional Framework

Article 200 empowers the Governor to either assent, withhold assent, or reserve a bill passed by the state legislature for the President’s consideration. Similarly, Article 201 deals with the President’s decision on such reserved bills. According to President Murmu, neither of these Articles prescribes a deadline, and any judicial imposition of such timelines may amount to an overreach of constitutional boundaries.

She emphasized that the discretion granted to the Governor and the President is integral to India’s federal framework. The President also noted that her decisions must take into account broader national interests such as federal balance, legal uniformity, national security, and the principle of separation of powers.

Conflicting Judicial Interpretations

President Murmu highlighted that Supreme Court rulings have not been consistent on the judicial reviewability of actions taken under Article 201. In certain cases, the judiciary has ruled that the President’s assent is not subject to judicial scrutiny, while in others, courts have indirectly interfered by urging timelines or calling for expeditious decision-making. These inconsistencies, according to her, warrant a comprehensive interpretation by a Constitution Bench.

She also raised concerns over the increasing tendency of states to approach the Supreme Court under Article 32 (fundamental rights) instead of Article 131 (original jurisdiction for Union-state disputes), particularly in federal matters.

The Thirteen Critical Constitutional Questions

In her reference to the Supreme Court, President Murmu listed 13 crucial questions for constitutional interpretation:

1. What are the Governor's constitutional options under Article 200 when presented with a state bill?

2. Is the Governor bound to follow the advice of the Council of Ministers in all such decisions?

3. Can the Governor’s discretion under Article 200 be challenged in court?

4. Does Article 361 offer absolute immunity to the Governor’s decisions under Article 200?

5. Can courts legally impose deadlines on Governors for bill-related decisions in the absence of such timelines in the Constitution?

6. Is the President’s discretion under Article 201 open to judicial review?

7. Can courts set timelines and procedures for the President under Article 201?

8. Is it mandatory for the President to seek Supreme Court opinion under Article 143 before deciding on reserved bills?

9. Can decisions made under Articles 200 and 201 be challenged before laws are enacted?

10. Does Article 142 empower courts to override or modify executive powers assigned by the Constitution?

11. Can a law come into effect without the Governor’s assent if delayed indefinitely?

12. Should all cases involving major constitutional interpretation first be referred to a five-judge bench under Article 145(3)?

13. Can the Supreme Court resolve Centre-state disputes in any way other than under Article 131?

These questions aim to demarcate the constitutional boundaries between the judiciary and the executive, especially when it comes to legislative processes at the state level.

Concerns About Judicial Overreach

President Murmu also addressed concerns about Article 142, which grants the Supreme Court power to pass any order necessary for doing "complete justice." According to her, this should not extend to matters that override clearly stated constitutional provisions, especially where discretion has been deliberately conferred upon constitutional authorities.

The concept of "deemed assent," she argued, undermines the very essence of executive discretion under the Constitution. Any timeline imposed by the judiciary might not only constrain the President and Governor but also interfere with the democratic checks and balances intended by the framers of the Constitution.

Implications for Federalism and Legislative Processes

This intervention by the President is being viewed as a rare and bold move that highlights concerns over judicial interference in the domain of the executive and legislature. It reopens the broader debate on how India’s federal structure functions, and whether judicial activism in matters of constitutional discretion and law-making could tilt the balance of power.

Legal experts believe that this move could lead to landmark clarifications on how Articles 200 and 201 should be interpreted and applied in practice. If the Supreme Court decides to entertain the Article 143(1) reference and set up a Constitution Bench, it could provide long-awaited answers to these contentious issues.

Conclusion

President Droupadi Murmu’s challenge to the Supreme Court's April ruling is not just a legal rebuttal—it is a call for constitutional clarity. By invoking Article 143(1) and laying down 13 specific legal questions, the President has taken the unprecedented step of inviting the judiciary to define the limits of its own powers and those of the executive.

This moment marks a crucial turning point in the evolving relationship between the executive, legislature, and judiciary in India. It may eventually set the tone for future interactions among the three pillars of the Constitution, particularly in matters involving state autonomy, federalism, and the interpretation of executive discretion under constitutional law.

The Upcoming IPOs in this week and coming weeks are Victory Electric Vehicles International, Borana Weaves, Dar Credit and Capital,Belrise Industries, Wagons Learning.

The Current active IPO are Accretion Pharmaceuticals, Integrity Infrabuild Developers.

Start your Stock Market Journey and Apply in IPO by Opening Free Demat Account in Choice Broking FinX.

Join our Trading with CA Abhay Telegram Channel for regular Stock Market Trading and Investment Calls by CA Abhay Varn - SEBI Registered Research Analyst.