President Droupadi Murmu has sought the Supreme Court’s opinion on 14 questions arising out of the April 8 verdict fixing deadlines for Governors and the President to take a call on Bills passed by state Assemblies.
In an unprecedented verdict, the apex court had on April 8 restricted the President’s discretionary powers on Bills referred by Governors under Article 201 of the Constitution and set a three-month timeframe for her to decide on the bills reserved for her consideration.
The President has sought the opinion under Article 143 which deals with the advisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under which the President is empowered to consult the top court and seek its opinion on questions of law or fact.
President Droupadi Murmu has sought the top court’s opinion on whether their actions are justiciable and whether such timelines can be imposed on them in the absence of any such provision in the Constitution.
In April this year, the Supreme Court set a timeline for Governors to act on Bills, and for the first time, prescribed that the President should take a decision on the Bills reserved for consideration by the Governor within three months from the date on which such reference is received.
Under Article 201 of the Constitution, no timeframe has been set for a presidential decision. The President has asked the Supreme Court to clarify if its powers under Article 142 were limited to matters of procedural law or extended to issuing directions or orders contrary to or inconsistent with the existing substantive or procedural provisions of the Constitution or any law in force.
President Murmu pointed out that Article 200 of the Constitution, which prescribes the powers of the Governor and the procedure to be followed while assenting to Bills, withholding assent to Bills and reserving a Bill for the consideration of the President, “does not stipulate any time frame upon the Governor for the exercise of constitutional options.”
“Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the President under Article 201 of the Constitution of India justiciable? In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed timeline and the manner of exercise of powers by the President, can timelines be imposed and the manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of discretion by the President under Article 201 of the Constitution of India?” the President has sought to know.
Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India justiciable? Is Article 361 of the Constitution of India an absolute bar to judicial review in relation to the actions of a Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?, she asked.
“In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed time limit, and the manner of exercise of powers by the Governor, can timelines be imposed and the manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of all powers under Article 200 of the Constitution of India by the Governor?” President Murmu asked.
