President Murmu seeks SC’s opinion on timelines for governors in bill approval process

A month after the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in the Tamil Nadu case, which set a deadline for the President and Governors to clear Bills passed by the legislature, President Droupadi Murmu has sought the court's opinion on whether timelines can be imposed on Governors regarding their approval of Bills. Under Article 143 of the Constitution, the President can consult the Supreme Court on legal matters of public importance, and this is what Murmu has done.

Also Read:Bengaluru: President Murmu advocates women’s empowerment at international conference

The President’s inquiry concerns whether the Governor is bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers when deciding on Bills under Article 200 of the Constitution. She has also asked whether a Governor’s exercise of constitutional discretion can be subject to judicial scrutiny, considering Article 361 of the Constitution, which grants the President and Governor immunity from being answerable in court for the exercise of their duties.

In her letter, President Murmu also questioned if judicial orders can prescribe timelines for the exercise of discretion by the President and Governors, particularly under Article 201 of the Constitution. This query comes after the April ruling, where the Supreme Court directed the President and Governors to clear Bills within three months. The case involved a standoff between the Tamil Nadu government and Governor RN Ravi over the delay in approving 10 Bills. The court had deemed the Governor’s inaction as "illegal and arbitrary."

The ruling emphasized that the President must consult the courts on constitutional matters, although it also acknowledged that the court does not typically intervene in purely political matters. The Supreme Court may now decide whether to form a Constitution bench to address the issue or reaffirm its earlier judgment.