Powers Clash: President Questions Supreme Court's Role

 

In a significant constitutional move, President Droupadi Murmu has sought the Supreme Court’s opinion on critical questions regarding the roles of governors and the President in assenting to bills passed by state legislatures. This reference, made under Article 143 of the Constitution, comes in the wake of the Supreme Court’s April 8 verdict, which imposed timelines for governors to act on bills and curtailed their discretionary powers under Article 200. The President’s intervention underscores the need for clarity on constitutional provisions that govern the assent process, a matter of growing political and legal relevance.

The President’s reference poses several pivotal questions. One key issue is whether governors are bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers when exercising their options under Article 200, which deals with the assent to state bills. The Supreme Court’s recent ruling emphasised that governors cannot withhold assent indefinitely or act on personal or political whims, but the President’s query seeks to explore the extent of judicial review permissible in such matters. Additionally, the reference questions whether the exercise of constitutional discretion by governors and the President under Articles 200 and 201 is justifiable.

Another critical aspect raised is the absence of constitutionally prescribed timelines for the President to decide on bills reserved for their consideration under Article 201. The President’s reference asks whether such timelines can be imposed through judicial orders, a question that strikes at the heart of the separation of powers doctrine. The Supreme Court’s April 8 verdict set deadlines for governors, but extending this to the President’s office could have far-reaching implications for the balance between the executive and the judiciary.

The reference also delves into the broader question of whether the Supreme Court, under Article 142, can substitute the decisions of the President or governors. This touches upon the court’s power to pass orders for “complete justice” and whether such authority can override constitutional discretion vested in the executive. Furthermore, the President has sought clarity on whether a bill passed by a state legislature but pending the governor’s assent can be considered a “law in force”.

The President’s intervention highlights the evolving tensions between constitutional offices and the judiciary. While the Supreme Court’s recent rulings have sought to curb delays in the assent process, the President’s reference calls for a nuanced examination of the constitutional boundaries governing these powers. The Supreme Court’s response will not only shape the future of executive-judicial relations but also define the limits of discretion and accountability in India’s democratic framework. As the apex court prepares to deliberate on these questions, its answers will carry profound implications for the functioning of federalism and the rule of law in India.