President Droupadi Murmu has used a rare constitutional provision to ask the Supreme Court for its advisory opinion on 14 questions, including whether the president and governors must adhere to deadlines when deciding state bills that are referred for consent, even when the Constitution does not specify it.
President of India Droupadi Murmu under Article 143 (1) of the Constitution of India has sent a reference to the Supreme Court following its recent ruling that set timelines for Governors and the President to grant assent to bills passed by legislatures.
— Bar and Bench (@barandbench) May 15, 2025
Read more here:… pic.twitter.com/JXrTKn7VAB
The Supreme Court’s April 8 ruling, which established deadlines for the President and Governor to take action on bills submitted to them for approval by state governments, is the backdrop for the reference the President is requesting from the court. The reference to being decided by the highest court assumes significance because the governor’s delay in approving bills referred by state governments is being challenged in separate petitions filed by the Kerala government, and it has previously been brought up by the states of Telangana and Punjab as well.
A petition filed by the Tamil Nadu government against the governor’s decision to refuse to give his consent to ten bills that were sent to him for approval was heard on April 8. The bills were returned, and the state legislature passed them in the same format once more. The governor sent the bills to the president while the state government’s challenge was being heard by the highest court. The court’s question concerned the governor’s authority and the process for granting consent under Article 200 of the Constitution, as well as the president’s authority to act upon a governor’s referral under Article 201
In its 415-page ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that the governor’s decision to withhold consent was unlawful and incorrect. It also used its authority under Article 142 of the Constitution to “deem” assent to the ten bills without remanding the case to the governor. It also stated that a governor must grant assent “forthwith” three months after the bill is presented, or within a month if a state legislature re-enacts the same bill, if a governor withholds assent or reserves it for the president’s consideration.
The President was required to make a decision within three months of receiving a bill from a governor, according to deadlines set forth even under Article 201. If there is a delay beyond this time frame, it is requested that the president’s office notify the state in question. Additionally, it mandated that the president seek the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion under Article 143 of the Constitution when the governor refers any bill that he believes to be “patently unconstitutional.”
