Saturday, March 29, 2025
President Droupadi Murmu has raised serious concerns over a recent Supreme Court ruling. The Court had set fixed deadlines for governors and the President to act on state legislature bills. In response, she invoked Article 143(1) of the Constitution, seeking the Court’s opinion on 14 key constitutional questions.
This move is rare. The President usually avoids using Article 143, which allows her to consult the Court on legal matters. The government supported this route over filing a review petition. Officials felt a review would go to the same bench that issued the original ruling and was unlikely to succeed.
On April 8, the Supreme Court ruled that governors must decide on state bills within three months. If a bill is returned and passed again by the legislature, governors have one month to act. If the bill goes to the President, the same three-month rule applies.
President Murmu strongly disagreed. She said these deadlines are not mentioned in Articles 200 or 201, which cover state bill procedures. She emphasized that the Constitution allows discretion in such decisions. Many factors play a role, including federal structure, national security, and legal consistency.
The Supreme Court said that if a bill remains pending beyond the deadline, it should be treated as approved. President Murmu rejected this idea. She argued that assuming assent goes against constitutional values and limits the powers of the President and governors.
According to her, “The Constitution gives the President clear authority to decide on bills. The Court cannot interfere with that process.”
President Murmu also questioned the use of Article 142 in this case. This article gives the Court wide powers to ensure justice. However, she said using it where the Constitution already has clear rules can cause imbalance.
“Article 142 should not override explicit constitutional provisions,” she warned.
Another issue raised by the President involves how state governments approach the Court. She pointed out that states are filing petitions under Article 32 — meant to protect individual rights — instead of using Article 131, which deals with Centre-state disputes.
“This practice weakens Article 131,” she said. “States are bypassing proper channels and turning federal matters into fundamental rights issues.”
This constitutional referral marks an unusual step in India’s political-legal history. The original verdict came from a bench including Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan. Now, the Supreme Court must decide whether it went beyond its powers by enforcing timelines on the executive.
The outcome could redefine how power is shared between India’s judiciary and executive.
