In a move to seek clarity on whether courts can interfere with the exercise of powers by the President and Governor in giving assent to a Bill passed by a state legislature under Article 200 and Article 201 of the constitution, President Droupadi Murmu on Wednesday invoked her powers under Article 143(1) of the Constitution to refer a landmark Supreme Court ruling—which set timelines for Governors and the President to give assent to Bills—for the Court’s advisory opinion, calling into question whether the judiciary can impose such time-bound mandates on the Governors and the President.

This move sets the stage for a constitution bench to deliberate over 14 questions raised by the President on the interplay between the Executive and Judiciary, particularly in the context of Articles 200 and 201, which deal with the assent process for Bills passed by State legislatures.

Advertisement

The referral arises out of the April 8, 2025, judgment by a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan, which had set a deadline of three-months for the President to decide on a Bill sent by a Governor for consideration and in the event of any delay in adhering to the prescribed time limit appropriate reasons would have to be recorded and conveyed to the concerned State government and the same is open to judicial review.

The top court has set the time limit of three months for deciding on a bill referred to the President for consideration, stating “The position of law is settled that even where no time limit is prescribed for the exercise of any power under a statute, it should be exercised within a reasonable time. The exercise of powers by the President under Article 201 cannot be said to be immune to this general principle of law.”

The core of the dispute arising from the April 2025, judgment is that the Governors must act on Bills within a reasonable timeframe even though no deadline is mentioned in Article 200′; a three-month period was set for the President to act on Bills reserved under Article 201 and in case of delay, a “deemed assent” could be inferred, subject to judicial review.

The top court verdict had come on a petition by the Tamil Nadu government that had challenged the repeated delays by the Governor R.N. Ravi in giving assent to the Bills passed by the State legislature.

President Murmu in her 14-question reference questions whether timelines can be judicially imposed where the Constitution is silent?, Is “deemed assent” constitutionally valid? and Is such judicial direction tantamount to violating separation of powers?

The reference states that Article 200 and Article 201 do not provide any time-bound mandate and the concept of “deemed assent” does not exist in the constitutional framework.

The key questions in the reference on which the President has sought top court’s opinion are whether the Governor’s discretion under Article 200 is justiciable; Can judicial orders prescribe timelines for President when no such timelines exist in the Constitution: Is judicial review permissible before a Bill becomes law’ Can Article 142 be invoked to override constitutional provisions; Can the Supreme Court issue directions to the President, thereby curtailing or prescribing the exercise of her constitutional powers?

The reference by President Murmu for an advisory opinion is the fourth one in the last 50 years. Such references are not binding, but are treated with the highest constitutional sanctity.

The April 8 ruling had sparked widespread reactions, and the Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar had sharply criticized the Court’s directive, saying it signalled a disturbing trend where courts “legislate, execute, and override the Constitution”.

However, the legal experts are divided: while some hail the ruling as a safeguard against indefinite gubernatorial delays, others term it judicial overreach into legislative and executive prerogatives.

Following the reference, the Supreme Court is expected to constitute a Constitution Bench to examine and answer the 14 constitutional queries. The outcome may reshape the contours of executive discretion, judicial review, and the doctrine of separation of powers under the constitution of India.

.This development comes at a time of heightened tensions between the judiciary and the executive, and may well define the institutional boundaries for years to come.