New Delhi: President Droupadi Murmu has posed 14 crucial questions to the Supreme Court over its April 8 verdict that fixed timelines for governors and the President to act on bills passed by state assemblies.
Exercising her power under the rarely used Article 143 (1), President Murmu said in the present circumstances, it appears that the following questions of law have arisen and they are of such nature and public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court of India thereon.
Article 143 (1) of the Constitution deals with the power of the President to consult the Supreme Court.
The apex court passed a judgment in April on the State of Tamil Nadu v The Governor of Tamil Nadu and Anr and held that the Governors cannot sit over bills passed by the state legislature indefinitely.
A bench consisting of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan laid down the provisions of Articles 200 and 201 of the Indian Constitution as it passed the judgment.
The bench stated that the phrase “as soon as possible” in Article 200 conveys a sense of urgency and does not permit the governor to “sit on the bills and exercise pocket veto over them.”
What has Prez Murmu asked?
Here are all the questions posed by President Murmu:
- What are the constitutional options before a governor when a Bill is presented to him under Article 200?
- Is the governor bound by the aid and advice tendered by the council of ministers while exercising all the options available to him when a Bill is presented before him?
- Is the constitutional discretion by the guv under Art 200 justiciable?
- Is Article 361 an absolute bar to judicial review of actions of a guv under Article 200?
- In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed time limit and the manner of exercise of powers by the governor, can a timeline be imposed and the manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of all powers under Article 200 by the governor?
- Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the President under Article 201 justiciable?
- 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 prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of discretion by the President under Article 201?
- In the light of the constitutional scheme governing powers of the President, is the President required to seek advice of SC by way of a reference under Article 143 and take the SC’s opinion when the governor reserves a Bill for the President’s assent or otherwise?
- Are decisions of the guv and President under Articles 200 and 201, respectively, justiciable at a stage anterior to the law coming into force? Is it permissible for courts to undertake judicial adjudication over the contents of a Bill, in any manner, before it becomes law?
- Can the exercise of constitutional powers and orders of/by President/governor be substituted in any manner under Article 142?
- Is the law made by the state legislature a law in force without the assent of the governor?
- Given Article 145(3) is it not mandatory for any bench of SC to first decide whether the question involved in the proceedings before it is of such nature which involves substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution and to refer it to it a bench of minimum five judges?
- Do the powers of SC under Article 142 limited to matters of procedural law or Article 142 extend to issuing directions/passing orders contrary to or inconsistent with the existing substantive or procedural provisions of the Constitution or law in force?
- Does the Constitution bar any other jurisdiction of the SC to resolve disputes between the Union government and state governments except by way of a suit under Article 131?
