Can Supreme Court Set Timelines for President, Governor on Bill Assent When Constitution Doesn’t? Verdict Tomorrow

The Supreme Court will on Thursday issue its advisory opinion on a Presidential reference that poses 14 questions concerning the timeframes for granting assent to bills by the President and state Governors under constitutional provisions in Articles 200 and 201.

A five-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, along with Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha, and AS Chandurkar, conducted hearings on the matter over ten days beginning September 11 before reserving its opinion.

The Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in April this year enabled the Tamil Nadu government to notify 10 bills that had been withheld by Governor RN Ravi without his approval, marking an unprecedented development. This action by the Stalin administration came days after the apex court declared the Governor’s decision to reserve the 10 bills for the President as “illegal and erroneous”.

On April 12, the top court ruled that the President must decide on bills reserved by the Governor within three months. The bench noted that the President’s powers under Article 201 were subject to judicial review, thereby creating significant constitutional debate.

The Constitution does not prescribe a specific time limit for the President to grant assent to a bill reserved by the Governor for consideration.

In its judgment, the Supreme Court highlighted that the absence of a defined timeline for Presidential approval leaves bills in “indefinite and uncertain abeyance”.

The apex court further stated that the President cannot arbitrarily delay assent to a bill indefinitely; a decision must either be taken within three months or the reason for the delay must be clearly communicated to the state.

Following the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment on the Tamil Nadu Governor earlier this year, President Droupadi Murmu exercised powers under Article 143 of the Constitution to seek the Court’s guidance. The President has asked the Supreme Court: “How can the Court set a timeline when the Constitution does not?”.

14 questions referred to Supreme Court by President

Listed below are all 14 questions referred to the Supreme Court:

1. What are the constitutional options before a Governor when a Bill is presented to him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?
   
2. 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 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 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?
   
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 does 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?
    
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?