President Murmu’s Presidential Reference: A Constitutional Showdown Over Assent Timelines

New Delhi: In an unprecedented move that has ignited a fierce constitutional debate, President Droupadi Murmu has invoked Article 143 of the Indian Constitution to seek the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion on 14 pivotal questions regarding the powers of the President and Governors in granting assent to bills. Dated May 13, 2025, this Presidential Reference challenges the judiciary’s authority to impose timelines on constitutional authorities and scrutinizes the scope of the Supreme Court’s powers under Article 142 to deliver “complete justice.” The reference was triggered by a contentious Supreme Court ruling on April 8, 2025, in the State of Tamil Nadu vs. Governor of Tamil Nadu case, which mandated a three-month deadline for decisions on reserved bills.

Origins: The Tamil Nadu Governor Case and Judicial Overreach

The Presidential Reference stems from a landmark Supreme Court judgment delivered on April 8, 2025, by Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan. The case arose from a petition by the Tamil Nadu government, which challenged Governor R.N. Ravi’s prolonged inaction on 10 bills passed by the state legislature. The Governor had withheld assent, returned the bills without a message, and later reserved them for the President’s consideration. The Supreme Court declared these actions illegal, invoking Article 142 to deem all 10 bills assented to, effectively bypassing the Governor’s and President’s discretion.

The court outlined that under Article 200, Governors have three options: grant assent, withhold assent, or reserve a bill for the President’s consideration. It stressed that Governors must act on the advice of the Council of Ministers and cannot indefinitely delay decisions, as bills embody the “will of the people.” The court further mandated that the President, under Article 201, must decide on reserved bills within three months, rejecting the concept of a “pocket veto” where inaction could stall legislation.

This ruling provoked strong objections from the executive. The Centre labeled it a “clear overreach,” while Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar called Article 142 a “nuclear missile against democratic forces.” The imposition of a three-month timeline, particularly for the President under Article 201, raised fundamental questions about judicial authority over constitutional roles, prompting President Murmu to seek clarity through a Presidential Reference.

The Presidential Reference: 14 Questions to Redefine Constitutional Roles

Under Article 143, which empowers the President to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion on matters of legal and public importance, President Murmu submitted a 14-point reference to the Supreme Court. These questions aim to clarify the boundaries of judicial power, executive discretion, and federal balance. Below is a detailed breakdown of the key issues:

1. Article 142’s Scope: Can the Supreme Court’s powers under Article 142 override the constitutional roles of the President and Governors? The reference questions whether Article 142 extends to issuing directions that contradict substantive or procedural constitutional provisions.
2. Judicial Timelines: Is it constitutionally valid to impose timelines on the President under Article 201 or Governors under Article 200 for acting on bills? The reference notes that the Constitution lacks specific time limits, questioning whether judicial orders can impose them.
3. Deemed Assent: The concept of “deemed assent,” introduced in the Tamil Nadu case, is challenged. The reference asks whether a state legislature’s law can be considered “in force” without explicit assent from the Governor or President, arguing that this undermines constitutional authority.
4. Justiciability: Are decisions by Governors under Article 200 and the President under Article 201 subject to judicial review before a bill becomes law? The reference questions whether courts can adjudicate a bill’s contents prior to enactment.
5. Governor’s Options: What are the constitutional options for a Governor under Article 200? The Supreme Court specified three choices—assent, withhold, or reserve—but the reference seeks clarity on whether Governors are bound by the Council of Ministers’ advice.
6. Article 361 Immunity: Does Article 361, which grants immunity to the President and Governors from legal action while in office, bar judicial review of their actions under Articles 200 and 201? The Supreme Court had held that this immunity does not preclude scrutiny, but the reference seeks to revisit this.
7. Five-Judge Bench: Was it appropriate for a two-judge bench to rule on substantial constitutional questions without referring the matter to a five-judge Constitution Bench, as mandated by Article 145(3)?
8. Article 131 and Federal Disputes: Is there a bar on the Supreme Court resolving Centre-state disputes outside an original suit under Article 131, which governs the court’s original jurisdiction?
9. State Exploitation: Are state governments leveraging the Supreme Court’s plenary powers to challenge the Centre, disrupting federal harmony?
10. Presidential Advice: Is the President required to seek the Supreme Court’s advice when a bill is reserved under Article 201?
11. Constitutional Discretion: Is the exercise of discretion by Governors under Article 200 and the President under Article 201 justiciable?
12. Judicial Substitution: Can judicial orders under Article 142 substitute the constitutional powers of the President or Governors?
13. Mandatory Referral: Is it mandatory to refer cases involving substantial constitutional questions to a five-judge bench under Article 145(3)?
14. Procedural vs. Substantive: Is Article 142 limited to procedural law, or does it extend to directions contrary to constitutional provisions?

These questions collectively probe the “contours and scope” of Article 142, the discretionary powers of constitutional authorities, and the judiciary’s role in India’s federal structure.

Constitutional Provisions in Focus

The Presidential Reference invokes several key constitutional articles:

• Article 143: Allows the President to seek the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion on legal and public matters.
• Article 200: Governs the Governor’s powers over state legislature bills, including assent, withholding, or reservation.
• Article 201: Details the President’s powers when a Governor reserves a bill.
• Article 142: Empowers the Supreme Court to issue orders for complete justice.
• Article 145(3): Requires a minimum five-judge bench for substantial constitutional questions or Article 143 references.
• Article 361: Grants immunity to the President and Governors from legal accountability for official actions.
• Article 131: Defines the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction in Centre-state disputes.

Political and Legal Reactions

The Presidential Reference has sparked a firestorm of reactions. Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar criticized the April 8 ruling as “judicial overreach,” warning that it undermines democracy by compelling the President to act within a judicially imposed timeframe. He stated, “We never bargained for democracy for this day,” highlighting the erosion of executive autonomy.

The Centre has echoed these concerns, urging the formation of a Constitution Bench. With Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna’s tenure ending on May 13, 2025, Chief Justice B.R. Gavai now bears the responsibility to constitute this bench.

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin condemned the reference, arguing that it challenges the Supreme Court’s efforts to ensure timely governance. This reflects the tension between executive discretion and judicial oversight.

Legal scholars view the reference as a defining moment in India’s constitutional history. It questions the judiciary’s role in setting timelines and reignites debates on federal balance, executive discretion, and judicial review. The Supreme Court’s opinion could set a precedent for constitutional governance.

The Supreme Court’s Defense

In the April 8 ruling, Justice Pardiwala defended the use of Article 142, stating it was invoked “only after the deepest of deliberations” to address the Governor’s “clear violation” of constitutional procedures. The court criticized the Governor’s prolonged inaction, withholding of assent without a message, and reservation of bills as unconstitutional. It emphasized that Article 142 was used in the public interest, not casually.

The court also clarified that Article 361’s immunity does not bar judicial scrutiny of Governors’ actions under Article 200, citing prior judgments. However, the Presidential Reference argues that conflicting rulings necessitate clarity.

Implications for Federalism

The reference raises critical questions about the balance between executive discretion and judicial oversight. By challenging “deemed assent” and judicial timelines, it underscores tensions between the Centre and states. The concern that states may exploit judicial powers to challenge federal authority highlights the fragility of India’s federal framework.

The Supreme Court’s response will shape the governance of state legislation, the exercise of discretionary powers, and the interplay between constitutional authorities. A Constitution Bench will be pivotal in resolving these issues.

Looking Ahead: A Constitutional Crossroads

As the Supreme Court prepares to address the reference, India stands at a constitutional crossroads. The advisory opinion will influence the balance between the executive, judiciary, and legislature, ensuring no branch oversteps its mandate.

This rare Presidential Reference underscores the need for dialogue on constitutional roles. It reaffirms the checks and balances that define India’s democracy, ensuring accountability and transparency in governance. For readers seeking insight into this historic clash, the Supreme Court’s ruling will be a landmark in India’s legal and political landscape.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)