President Murmu invoked Article 143 to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion on 14 key questions challenging its 2025 ruling on gubernatorial and presidential powers over state bills. The advisory opinion may redefine timelines, discretion, and judicial review concerning Articles 200, 201, and 142 in legislative procedures.
Copyright infringement not intended
Picture Courtesy: INDIAN EXPRESS
President invokes Article 143 to seek Supreme Court’s opinion on key constitutional questions regarding presidential powers.
President Droupadi Murmu invoked Article 143(1) of the Constitution, which allows the President to seek the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion on matters of public or legal importance.
She sent 14 questions to the Supreme Court, challenging its April 2025 ruling in the State of Tamil Nadu v/s Governor of Tamil Nadu case.
President argues that Articles 200 and 201, which govern the roles of Governors and the President in approving state bills, do not specify any timelines. She believes the Supreme Court’s ruling oversteps its authority, as the “deemed assent” concept restricts the constitutional powers of the President and Governors.
Options Available to a Governor under Article 200: What are the constitutional options before a Governor when a Bill is presented to him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?
Binding Nature of Ministerial Advice: Is the Governor bound by the aid and 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?
Justiciability of Governor's Discretion: Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India justiciable?
Article 361 and Judicial Review: Is Article 361 of the Constitution of India an absolute bar to judicial review in relation to the actions of a Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?
Imposing Timelines through Judicial Orders: 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?
Justiciability of President's Discretion under Article 201: Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the President under Article 201 of the Constitution of India justiciable?
Imposing Timelines on the President: 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?
Mandatory Reference to the Supreme Court: 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?
Justiciability of Decisions Before Law Comes into Force: 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 to 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?
Substitution of Constitutional Powers under Article 142: 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?
Effectiveness of State Laws Without Governor's Assent: 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?
Mandatory Referral to a Larger Bench: 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 the Constitution and to refer it to a bench of minimum five Judges?
Scope of Article 142 Powers: Do the powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India extend to issuing directions/passing orders which are contrary to or inconsistent with existing substantive or procedural provisions of the Constitution or law in force?
Jurisdiction to Resolve Union-State Disputes: 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?
|
Advisory opinion of the Supreme Court, though not binding, will carry significant weightage and may reshape how Governors and the President handle bills. |
Must Read Articles:
Source:
|
PRACTICE QUESTION Q. "Judicial activism" by the Supreme Court might provoke resistance from the executive, potentially leading to a constitutional deadlock. Critically analyze. 150 words |
© 2025 iasgyan. All right reserved
