President Murmu Fires Constitutional Salvo at Supreme Court’s Directive on Bill Assents: “No Timelines in Constitution”

New Delhi: In a powerful rebuttal to the Supreme Court’s April 8 ruling that sought to impose deadlines on Governors and the President for granting or withholding assent to state bills, President Droupadi Murmu has pushed back, questioning the very constitutional foundation of such judicial directives.

Citing the absence of explicit timelines in the Constitution, President Murmu has invoked Article 143(1) to formally seek the Supreme Court’s opinion on a series of critical constitutional questions surrounding the discretionary powers of Governors and the President.

In her response, President Murmu argued that “the Constitution does not prescribe any specific time frame” for either the Governor or the President to act on state legislation. She based this assertion on Article 200, which permits a Governor to grant assent, withhold assent, or reserve the bill for the President, without mentioning any timeline. Likewise, Article 201, which governs the President’s assent to such reserved bills, also lacks any procedural deadlines.

The President’s communication warns that prescribing timelines through judicial fiat risks encroaching upon constitutionally defined roles and discretionary powers. “The discretionary powers of the Governor and the President are grounded in broader constitutional principles—federalism, national security, legal uniformity, and separation of powers,” she stated.

Adding another layer of constitutional complexity, the President highlighted the judiciary’s own conflicting rulings on whether the President’s assent under Article 201 is even subject to judicial review. Moreover, she raised concerns over states approaching the Supreme Court under Article 32 instead of Article 131 for federal disputes, potentially bypassing established constitutional mechanisms.

In her referral to the apex court under Article 143(1)—which allows the President to seek the Court’s advisory opinion on matters of public importance—Murmu laid out a list of 12 constitutional queries that she argues require urgent clarification:

1. What options does a Governor have under Article 200?
2. Is the Governor bound by the Council of Ministers’ advice?
3. Is the Governor’s discretion under Article 200 judicially reviewable?
4. Does Article 361 provide blanket protection to Governors from judicial scrutiny?
5. Can courts impose timelines on Governors in absence of constitutional deadlines?
6. Is the President’s discretion under Article 201 subject to judicial review?
7. Can courts mandate timelines or procedures for the President’s assent process?
8. Must the President consult the Supreme Court under Article 143 when ruling on reserved bills?
9. Are Governor and President decisions under Articles 200/201 justiciable before the law takes effect?
10. Can Article 142 be used by courts to override or modify executive discretion?
11. Does a bill become law without Governor’s assent under Article 200?
12. Should a five-judge bench be mandatory under Article 145(3) for substantial constitutional matters?

Murmu also raised the critical issue of whether the Supreme Court’s powers under Article 142—which allows it to pass any order necessary for “complete justice”—can be used to supersede constitutional silence on such timelines, particularly in areas explicitly left to executive discretion.