President Droupadi Murmu has invoked Article 143 to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion on whether judicial orders can impose timelines for the President and Governors in granting or withholding assent to State Bills under Articles 200 and 201.
The move follows a Supreme Court ruling that criticized the Tamil Nadu Governor for delaying action on Bills. Central issues include the validity of ‘deemed assent’, judicial powers under Article 142, and the justiciability of executive discretion.
The outcome may reshape the constitutional framework governing Centre-State legislative interactions.
Background and Trigger
- The issue arises from a petition by the Tamil Nadu government against Governor R.N. Ravi’s delay in acting on 10 re-passed Bills.
- The Supreme Court, invoking Article 142, held the Governor’s inaction illegal and deemed the Bills to have received assent.
- This verdict prompted the Presidential Reference to test the validity and scope of Article 142 and assess the boundaries of judicial overreach.
Static & Legal Provisions Discussed
- Article 200: Governor’s options on State Bills — assent, withhold assent, or reserve for President.
- Article 201: Bills reserved for the President’s consideration.
- Article 143: President’s power to refer legal questions to SC for advisory opinion.
- Article 142: Supreme Court’s power to do complete justice.
- Article 145(3): Cases involving interpretation of the Constitution must be heard by at least a 5-judge Bench.
- Article 361: Immunity to President and Governors from legal proceedings during tenure.
