President Murmu challenges SC’s timeline on Bill assent under Article 143
THE JHARKHAND STORY NETWORK New Delhi, May 15: In a rare constitutional development, President Droupadi Murmu has invoked Article 143(1) of…
THE JHARKHAND STORY NETWORK
New Delhi, May 15: In a rare constitutional development, President Droupadi Murmu has invoked Article 143(1) of the Indian Constitution to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion on its recent verdict mandating fixed timelines for the President and Governors to grant assent to bills passed by state legislatures.
The reference, which includes 14 pointed legal questions, challenges the apex court’s assertion that “deemed assent” may be inferred if constitutional authorities fail to act within the prescribed timeframe.
What Is Article 143?
Article 143(1) empowers the President to consult the Supreme Court on matters of public or constitutional importance. The court must now constitute a Constitution Bench to deliberate on the questions posed.
President Questions Judicial Overreach
President Murmu has raised concerns about whether the Supreme Court, in setting timelines, has effectively rewritten constitutional provisions—particularly Articles 200 and 201, which govern the roles of Governors and the President in granting assent to state bills.
The reference contends that the concept of “deemed assent” is foreign to the constitutional framework and could undermine the discretionary powers vested in the President and Governors.
The development is also important for Jharkhand, where the Governor has been accused of delaying action on several bills cleared by the state legislature – a situation the Supreme Court addressed in a verdict last month.
The 14 Constitutional Questions
Among the key queries sent to the apex court are:
- Can courts impose timelines on constitutional authorities where the Constitution itself is silent?
- Is the Governor or President’s discretion under Articles 200 and 201 subject to judicial review?
- Can the Supreme Court invoke Article 142 to issue directions that potentially override substantive constitutional provisions?
- Does Article 361, which grants immunity to the President and Governors, bar judicial scrutiny of their actions in granting or withholding assent?
The full list of 14 questions probes the boundaries of judicial, executive, and legislative authority—potentially setting the stage for a landmark clarification of constitutional interpretation.
Backdrop: SC’s April Ruling on Governor’s Powers
The development follows an April judgment by a bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, which observed that while Article 200 does not specify a timeline, it cannot be interpreted as permitting indefinite inaction by Governors.
The court also ruled that presidential decisions under Article 201 are open to judicial review. It prescribed a three-month window for the President to act on any bill referred under Article 201, noting that delays beyond this period must be justified in writing.
A Rare Move with Wide Implications
President Murmu’s invocation of Article 143 marks a significant constitutional moment—only a handful of such references have been made in independent India’s history. The outcome of this consultation may define the contours of executive authority and judicial oversight in India’s federal structure.
