President Murmu asks 14 ‘constitutional questions’ to Supreme Court on Governor’s powers over Bills

The President’s intervention marks a rare but constitutionally significant invocation of her authority to seek judicial opinion, potentially paving the way for a broader debate on federalism, judicial activism and the boundaries of constitutional offices

South First Desk

Published May 15, 2025 | 11:11 AM ⚊ Updated May 15, 2025 | 11:11 AM

President Droupadi Murmu addressing the Lok Sabha.

Synopsis: In the wake of the recent landmark judgement by the apex court concerning the roles and powers of Governors and the President, the President has raised a set of 14 constitutional questions seeking the Supreme Court’s guidance.

In a significant development that could redefine the contours of federal relations in India, President Droupadi Murmu on Tuesday, 13 May, formally sought clarity from the Supreme Court on 14 vital constitutional questions.

The questions were raised in the wake of the recent landmark judgement by the apex court concerning the roles and powers of Governors and the President in relation to state legislation under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution.

In the case involving the Tamil Nadu government’s petition against the state Governor for inaction on 10 bills passed by the state Assembly, heard by a bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, resulted in a detailed verdict sharply criticising the Governor’s actions and setting strict timelines for decision-making.

Also Read: Landmark judgement on RN Ravi explained

Supreme Court’s key ruling

The apex court ruled that a Governor cannot delay assent on a bill indefinitely and must act “as soon as possible” as per Article 200. It asserted that:

• The Governor has only three options: Grant assent, withhold assent, or reserve the bill for the President.
• A bill reintroduced without substantial changes cannot be referred again to the President.
• The Governor’s indefinite inaction on bills is unconstitutional and illegal.
• The court mandated a one-month deadline for decision-making once a bill is presented.
• In cases where the Governor wishes to return or reserve a bill, the decision must be made within a maximum of three months.

The judgment was welcomed by several political parties, especially the ruling DMK in Tamil Nadu, while Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar criticised the Supreme Court’s directive.

Also Read: The Supreme Court just told Governors, ‘do your job’

The president raises questions

Amid this charged political and constitutional atmosphere, the President has raised a set of 14 constitutional questions seeking the Supreme Court’s guidance, underlining doubts regarding the interpretation and application of Articles 200 and 201.

The President posed the following questions for the Supreme Court regarding the judgement.

1. What constitutional options are available to a Governor under Article 200?
2. Is the Governor bound by the advice of the Council of Ministers while exercising these options?
3. Is the Governor’s discretion under Article 200 subject to judicial review?
4. Does Article 361 completely bar judicial scrutiny of a Governor’s actions under Article 200?
5. In the absence of express timelines, can the judiciary impose deadlines on the Governor under Article 200?
6. Is the President’s discretion under Article 201 also subject to judicial scrutiny?
7. Can the judiciary prescribe timelines for the President’s action under Article 201?
8. When a bill is reserved for Presidential assent, must the President consult the Supreme Court under Article 143?
9. Can courts intervene before a bill becomes law, even at the stage of gubernatorial or presidential decision-making?
10. Can the Supreme Court, under Article 142, substitute or override decisions made by the President or Governor?
11. Can a bill become law without the Governor’s assent under Article 200?
12. Should constitutional interpretation questions first be referred to a Constitution Bench of at least five judges as per Article 145(3)?
13. Do Article 142 powers extend to overriding substantive constitutional provisions, or are they limited to procedural gaps?
14. Can disputes between the Union and State be adjudicated by any means other than a suit under Article 131?

The President’s intervention marks a rare but constitutionally significant invocation of her authority to seek judicial opinion, potentially paving the way for a broader debate on federalism, judicial activism and the boundaries of constitutional offices.

(Edited by Muhammed Fazil.)

Follow us