President Murmu Invokes Article 143 Over Governors’ Bill Assent Powers

In a rare constitutional move, President Droupadi Murmu has invoked Article 143 of the Constitution to seek the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion on a range of legal questions concerning the powers and conduct of Governors and the President in relation to State legislation under Articles 200 and 201. This Presidential Reference stems from a recent Supreme Court judgment criticizing delays by the Tamil Nadu Governor in granting assent to Bills passed by the State Legislature.

Why in News?

On May 13, 2025, President Murmu referred 14 constitutional questions to the Supreme Court after a two-judge Bench judgment (April 8, 2025) deemed the Tamil Nadu Governor’s delay in Bill assent as unconstitutional. The move is significant as it seeks to resolve long-standing ambiguities regarding the discretionary powers of Governors and the President, and the limits of judicial intervention under Article 142.

Key Questions Raised in the Presidential Reference

1. What are the Constitutional options before a Governor when a Bill is presented to him under Article 200 for assent?
2. Is the Governor bound by the aid and advice tendered by the Council of Ministers?
3. Is the exercise of Constitutional discretion by the Governor under Article 200 justiciable?
4. Is Article 361 of the Constitution (immunity given to President and Governors from legal action while in office) an absolute bar to judicial review in relation to the actions of a Governor under Article 200?
5. In the absence of any Constitutionally prescribed time limit or manner of exercise of powers by a Governor, can time limits be imposed and manner of exercise of powers be prescribed through judicial orders?
6. Is the exercise of Constitutional discretion by the President under Article 201 (dealing with Bills reserved by a Governor for consideration by the President) justiciable?
7. Can judicial orders impose timelines and manner of exercise of powers by the President under Article 201?
8. Is the President required to take advice from the Supreme Court when a Bill is reserved by a Governor for the President’s assent?
9. Are decisions of the Governor and the President under Articles 200 and 201, respectively, justiciable at a stage prior to even the Bill in question becoming a law. Is it permissible for the courts to undertake judicial adjudication over the contents of a Bill, in any manner, before it becomes law?
10. Can the Constitutional powers of the President/Governors be substituted by a judicial order exercising Article 142?
11. Is a law made by the State Legislature a law in force without the assent of the Governor?
12. Is it not mandatory for a Supreme Court Bench to examine if a case involved substantial questions of law regarding interpretation of the Constitution and refer the case to a Bench of a minimum five judges under Article 145(3)?
13. Is Article 142 limited to matters of procedural law or does it extend to issuing directions “contrary to or inconsistent with existing substantive or procedural provisions of the Constitution”?
14. Is there a bar on the Supreme Court from deciding between the Centre and States other than by way of filing an original suit under Article 131?

Background and Trigger

• The issue arises from a petition by the Tamil Nadu government against Governor R.N. Ravi’s delay in acting on 10 re-passed Bills.
• The Supreme Court, invoking Article 142, held the Governor’s inaction illegal and deemed the Bills to have received assent.
• This verdict prompted the Presidential Reference to test the validity and scope of Article 142 and assess the boundaries of judicial overreach.

Static & Legal Provisions Discussed

• Article 200: Governor’s options on State Bills — assent, withhold assent, or reserve for President.
• Article 201: Bills reserved for the President’s consideration.
• Article 143: President’s power to refer legal questions to SC for advisory opinion.
• Article 142: Supreme Court’s power to do complete justice.
• Article 145(3): Cases involving interpretation of the Constitution must be heard by at least a 5-judge Bench.
• Article 361: Immunity to President and Governors from legal proceedings during tenure.

Significance of the Reference

• Clarifies constitutional roles of President and Governors in the lawmaking process.
• May set binding timelines for assent to prevent legislative paralysis.
• Addresses the balance of power between executive discretion and judicial activism.
• Influences future Centre-State relations and cooperative federalism.