The Supreme Court is set to deliver its opinion on Thursday regarding whether the President and state Governors can be placed under a time limit to decide on bills sent to them for approval. The matter stems from a Presidential Reference filed by President Droupadi Murmu. The reference was heard over 10 days, with the proceedings concluding on September 11.
A five-judge Constitution Bench has been tasked with deciding whether the court can intervene if the President or a Governor delays action on a bill passed by a state legislature.
What Triggered the Case
Bench to Examine Powers, Limits Under Articles 200 & 201
In April this year, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court approved 10 Tamil Nadu bills pending with the Governor and President, and also set a timeline for decisions on such bills. The court said state governments could approach the judiciary if no decision was taken within the stipulated period.
Challenging this interpretation, the President referred the matter to the Supreme Court under Article 143(1) of the Constitution, seeking clarity on constitutional boundaries.
The five-judge bench is headed by Chief Justice B. R. Gavai, with Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P. S. Narasimha, and A. S. Chandurkar as members.
14 Key Questions Raised by the President
In the Presidential Reference, 14 constitutional questions have been asked, including:
- What options does a Governor have under Article 200 when a bill is presented?
- Is the Governor bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers?
- Can judicial review apply to actions taken under Article 200?
- Does Article 361 bar courts from reviewing decisions of the Governor under Article 200?
- Can courts set a time limit on constitutional powers when no time frame is specified?
- Does the President exercise independent discretion under Article 201, and can courts review it?
- Can courts impose a timeline on decisions under Article 201?
- Can the President seek the Supreme Court’s advice under Article 143 before deciding a bill?
- Is judicial scrutiny permissible before a bill becomes a law?
- Can Article 142 be used in matters involving the President’s or Governor’s authority?
- Can a bill become law without the Governor’s assent under Article 200?
- Should constitutionally significant matters be mandatorily referred to a bench of at least five judges?
- Can Article 142 override constitutional provisions?
- Does Article 131 restrict the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction in other disputes involving the Centre and states?
Centre’s Argument
The Centre and NDA-ruled states argued that Articles 200 and 201 do not prescribe timelines, and the court cannot introduce new conditions, doing so would amount to a constitutional amendment, which lies solely within Parliament’s domain.
They also said Governors take an oath to uphold the Constitution and cannot be reduced to merely endorsing state government decisions. The Centre cited Article 361, which grants immunity to Governors from being made a party to court proceedings.
Additionally, it argued that disputes between the Centre and states should be filed as original suits under Article 131, not via a writ under Article 32, which is reserved for individual fundamental rights.
Opposition-Ruled States Oppose Centre
Punjab, Kerala, Karnataka, and several others contended that allowing Governors to hold bills indefinitely would undermine elected governments and give unelected offices unchecked power.
They argued that Governors act only on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers and may send a bill back once for reconsideration, but if the Assembly passes it again in its original form, the Governor must grant assent without delay.
