A Rare New Constitutional Move
In a significant constitutional development, President Droupadi Murmu has sought the Supreme Court’s opinion under Article 143(1) of the Indian Constitution. The President’s move comes in the wake of a recent Supreme Court ruling that imposes timelines for the President and State Governors to act on Bills passed by state legislatures.
This unprecedented reference by the President has sparked widespread debate over the separation of powers and the extent of judicial authority in prescribing procedural timelines for the executive branch of the government, especially when such timelines are not explicitly provided in the Constitution.
Supreme Court’s April 2025 Ruling: Setting Timelines for Bill Assent
In April 2025, the Supreme Court of India passed a landmark ruling that directed Governors to act on state Bills “as soon as possible” and, for the first time, stated that the President of India must take a decision within three months on Bills reserved for consideration under Article 201.
What is Article 201?
Article 201 of the Constitution allows the Governor of a state to reserve a Bill for the President’s consideration. However, the Constitution does not mention any specific timeline within which the President must act on such Bills. This legislative ambiguity has often led to delays in the assent process, prompting concerns about executive inaction or political strategy in withholding assent.
The April judgment, therefore, sought to plug this delay by laying down time-bound action—but without legislative backing, it raised a constitutional dilemma.
President Murmu’s Question: Can the Judiciary Prescribe Timelines?
By invoking Article 143(1), President Murmu has asked the Supreme Court to clarify whether:
-
The President’s or Governor’s decision on a Bill is justiciable—i.e., can courts review or direct such decisions?
-
The Supreme Court can impose timelines for the President or Governors when the Constitution does not specify any timeframe?
This presidential reference marks only the latest in a long-standing tug-of-war between judicial activism and executive autonomy. It also reflects a growing concern within the highest office of the Republic about the judiciary’s expanding role in procedural governance.
Constitutional and Legal Experts Weigh In
Legal scholars are divided over the issue. Some argue that the Supreme Court’s role is to interpret the Constitution, not to fill gaps by legislating from the bench. The doctrine of separation of powers suggests that each organ of government—executive, legislature, and judiciary—must operate within its domain.
“While delays in assent are problematic, judicial timelines without legislative mandate could risk setting a precedent for judicial overreach,” said a retired judge of the Supreme Court.
Others, however, argue that in the absence of clear timelines, judicial directions serve a vital role in ensuring accountability and preventing arbitrary or politically motivated delays in granting assent to state Bills.
Implications for Federalism and State Autonomy
This issue has broader implications for Indian federalism. Several state governments, particularly those led by opposition parties, have accused Governors and the Centre of stalling important legislation by delaying or denying assent. The Supreme Court’s decision to impose timelines was widely seen as an attempt to ensure efficiency and neutrality in the process.
President Murmu’s intervention, however, may push the apex court to re-evaluate whether such directives are constitutionally sustainable, especially since the Constitution grants discretionary powers to both Governors and the President in specific scenarios.
Why Article 143(1) Matters
Article 143(1) allows the President to seek the opinion of the Supreme Court on questions of law or fact of public importance. The opinion, though advisory, carries significant constitutional weight.
This is a rare and serious step. Article 143(1) references have historically been invoked only in situations of national constitutional uncertainty—such as during the Berubari Union case or the Babri Masjid case.
