In a significant move to clarify whether courts can intervene in the President’s and Governor’s powers regarding the assent of bills passed by state legislatures, President Droupadi Murmu invoked her authority under Article 143(1) of the Constitution. On Wednesday, she referred a landmark Supreme Court ruling—which established timelines for Governors and the President to give assent—to the Court for its advisory opinion. This raises the question of whether the judiciary can impose time-bound requirements on these offices.

This referral sets the stage for a constitutional bench to deliberate on 14 questions posed by the President concerning the relationship between the Executive and the Judiciary, particularly in relation to Articles 200 and 201, which pertain to the assent process for state legislation.

The referral stems from a judgment delivered on April 8, 2025, by Justices JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, which mandated a three-month deadline for the President to act on bills sent by a Governor. Any delays beyond this would require appropriate reasons to be documented and communicated to the state government, allowing for judicial review.

The Supreme Court’s ruling specified that even in the absence of a statutory time limit, powers exercised under a statute should occur within a reasonable timeframe. It asserted that the President’s actions under Article 201 are not exempt from this legal principle.

The crux of the dispute initiated by the April 2025 ruling is that Governors should act on bills within a reasonable timeframe, even when Article 200 does not specify a deadline. The judgment established that the President has a three-month window to act on bills reserved under Article 201, failing which “deemed assent” could be interpreted, subject to judicial review.

This ruling was prompted by a petition from the Tamil Nadu government, which challenged Governor R.N. Ravi’s ongoing delays in granting assent to state legislature bills.

In her 14 questions, President Murmu queries whether judicial timelines can be enforced when the Constitution is silent, whether “deemed assent” is constitutionally valid, and whether such judicial directives infringe on the separation of powers.

The reference highlights that Articles 200 and 201 lack any time-bound mandates, and questions the legitimacy of the “deemed assent” concept within the constitutional framework.

Key inquiries raised include whether the Governor’s discretion under Article 200 is justiciable, if judicial orders can stipulate timelines for the President in the absence of such provisions in the Constitution, the permissibility of judicial review prior to a bill becoming law, and whether Article 142 can override constitutional provisions.

This advisory referral by President Murmu marks the fourth instance in the past 50 years. While such references are non-binding, they carry significant constitutional weight.

The April 8 decision elicited widespread reactions, including strong criticism from Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar, who argued that it signifies a troubling trend of judicial overreach into legislative and executive functions.

Opinions among legal experts are split; some view the ruling as a necessary check against gubernatorial delays, while others criticize it as an overreach into legislative and executive authority.

Following this referral, the Supreme Court is anticipated to form a Constitution Bench to explore and respond to the 14 constitutional questions posed. The outcome has the potential to redefine the dynamics of executive discretion, judicial review, and the separation of powers within India’s constitutional framework.

This development occurs amidst rising tensions between the judiciary and the executive, potentially shaping institutional boundaries for years ahead.