Breaking: Can Supreme Court Fix Timelines For President To Decide Bills Reserved By Governor? President Refers 14 Questions To SC Under Article 143

In a 14-point reference to the Supreme Court under Article 143 of the Indian Constitution, President Droupadi Murmu has asked the Court whether the Court can set timeline of 3 months for the President to make a decision on the Bill reserved to her by the Governor under Article 201 when there is no such "constitutionally prescribed timeline".

In what could be termed as not an unexpected reference, the President has sought advice of the Supreme Court in the landmark Tamil Nadu Governor matter pronounced on April 8 by a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan. 

Article 143 allows the President to seek an opinion on the question of law or fact, which has arisen or likely to arise, and are of such nature and of such public opinion that it is expedient to obtain an opinion from the Supreme Court.

Considering that the 10 Bills were pending before Governor R.N. Ravi, the oldest of them pending since January 2020, and then it was reserved for the President's consideration when the State Assembly re-enacted it, the Court held the action of the Governor " "illegal and erroneous" in law and liable to be set aside.

Consequently, and for the first time in history, the Court held that the 10 Bills were deemed to have been assented to. In the reference, the President has stated that the concept of "deemed assent" of the President and the Governor is "alien" to the constitutional scheme and fundamentally "circumscribes" the power of the President and the Governor. 

The President has asked for the following:

1. What are the constitutional options before a Governor when a Bill is presented to him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?

12. Is the Governor bound by the aid & advice tendered by the Council of Ministers while exercising all the options available with him when a Bill is presented before him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?

3. Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India justiciable?

4. Is Article 361 of the Constitution of India an absolute bar to the judicial review in relation to the actions of a Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?

5. 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?

6. Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the President under Article 201 of the Constitution of India justiciable?

 7. 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?

8. In light of the constitutional scheme governing the powers of the President, is the President required to seek advice of the Supreme Court by way of a reference under Article 143 of the Constitution of India and take the opinion of the Supreme Court when the Governor reserves a Bill for the President's assent or otherwise?

9. Are the decisions of the Governor and the President under Article 200 and Article 201 of the Constitution of India, respectively, justiciable at a stage anterior into the law coming into force? Is it permissible for the Courts to undertake judicial adjudication over the contents of a Bill, in any manner, before it becomes law?

 10. Can the exercise of constitutional powers and the orders of/by the President / Governor be substituted in any manner under Article 142 of the Constitution of India?

11. Is a law made by the State legislature a law in force without the assent of the Governor granted under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?

 12. In view of the proviso to Article 145(3) of the Constitution of India, is it not mandatory for any bench of this Hon'ble Court to first decide as to whether the question involved in the proceedings before it is of such a nature which involves substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of constitution and to refer it to a bench of minimum five Judges?

13. Do the powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India limited to matters of procedural law or Article 142 of the Constitution of India extends to issuingdirections /passing orders which are contrary to or inconsistent with existing substantive or procedural provisions of the Constitution or law in force?

 14. Does the Constitution bar any other jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to resolve disputes between the Union Government and the State Governments except by way of a suit under Article 131 of the Constitution of India?