In an unprecedented move marked by deep constitutional concern, President Droupadi Murmu has sought the Supreme Court’s opinion on its recent judgment that set deadlines for the President and Governors to act on bills passed by state legislatures. The request, made under Article 143(1) of the Constitution—a provision rarely invoked—reflects a significant moment in the balance of powers among India’s key constitutional institutions.
The Supreme Court’s April 8 verdict had stirred considerable debate. Delivered in the backdrop of a case involving the Tamil Nadu government and its Governor, the ruling mandated strict timeframes for the consideration of bills—three months for the Governor and the President to grant or return them, and one month to grant assent after reconsideration. The Court also controversially introduced the idea of “deemed assent,” implying automatic approval of bills if no action was taken within the stipulated time.
However, President Murmu has raised fundamental questions about the constitutional validity of such timelines. She pointed out that the Constitution does not specify any deadlines for granting or withholding assent under Articles 200 and 201, which govern the roles of Governors and the President respectively. Instead, these powers are meant to be exercised with careful deliberation, guided by factors such as federal principles, national integrity, and the doctrine of separation of powers.
Describing the concept of deemed assent as “alien to the constitutional scheme,” the President expressed concern that it undermines the discretionary powers entrusted to her and the Governors. In her submission to the Court, she questioned whether the judiciary could impose such strict timelines without explicit constitutional backing.
Further, she raised broader concerns over the Supreme Court’s use of its extraordinary powers under Article 142 to ensure “complete justice,” suggesting that its application in this context may have exceeded its intended scope. She also questioned whether issues involving assent to bills—typically matters of Centre-State relations—should be adjudicated under Article 32, which is primarily meant for enforcement of individual fundamental rights, rather than under Article 131 which deals specifically with federal disputes.
This appeal for clarity is not merely a legal exercise—it underscores the gravity of maintaining the constitutional balance in India’s democratic framework. It also reflects the President’s role as a careful guardian of the Constitution, seeking to ensure that long-established conventions and legal safeguards are not inadvertently compromised by judicial activism.
As the Supreme Court prepares to consider this rare Presidential reference, the nation watches closely. The outcome will not only affect how laws are processed in future but will also shape the contours of constitutional interpretation for years to come.