The Supreme Court of India has wrapped up hearings and reserved its verdict on a key question from President Droupadi Murmu. She’s seeking the court’s advice under Article 143 of the Constitution about whether Governors can be forced to act quickly on Bills passed by state assemblies, especially since the Constitution doesn’t set any strict deadlines.
A five-judge bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai listened to intense arguments over 10 days. The Centre’s top lawyers—Attorney General R. Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta—presented the government’s side. On the other hand, opposition-led states like Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Kerala, Karnataka, Telangana, Punjab, and Himachal Pradesh strongly opposed the reference, arguing it could limit Governors’ roles.
This whole matter stems from ongoing tensions between state governments and Governors over Bill approvals. Back in May this year, after a major Supreme Court ruling on Tamil Nadu’s pending Bills, President Murmu turned to the court for clarity. She wanted opinions on what options a Governor has under Article 200 when a Bill lands on their desk—whether to give assent, withhold it, or send it to the President.
Flashback to April 2024: A two-judge bench, including Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, stepped in to end a deadlock between Tamil Nadu’s government and Governor R.N. Ravi. The court slammed the Governor’s delay on 10 Bills as “illegal and arbitrary.” Using its special powers under Article 142, the bench set a three-month deadline for Governors and the President to decide on Bills that state legislatures pass for a second time.
“The President must decide on Bills reserved by the Governor within three months of receiving them,” the judges ruled. If that doesn’t happen, states can approach the court with a writ petition to push for action. In a bold move, the court even declared those 10 Tamil Nadu Bills as “deemed assented” from the date they were re-presented to the Governor. It made clear: Once a Bill is sent back, repassed by the assembly, and returned to the Governor, they can’t just reserve it for the President again.
This ruling put pressure on how the President handles Bills under Article 201, sparking the current reference. Article 143 lets the President ask the Supreme Court for advice on big constitutional issues. In her questions, President Murmu zeroed in on whether Governors must follow the advice of their state’s Council of Ministers when dealing with Bills under Article 200. She also asked if a Governor’s decisions can be challenged in court, given Article 361’s protection against judicial review of their actions.
Finally, she sought the court’s view on imposing timelines through judicial orders for the President’s discretion under Article 201, since the Constitution is silent on any specific time limits or processes.
All eyes are now on the Supreme Court’s final opinion, which could reshape how Governors and the President handle state Bills and reduce delays in India’s federal system. This case highlights the push for smoother Centre-state relations and faster law-making in the country.
Stay informed on all the latest news, real-time breaking news updates, and follow all the important headlines in world News on Latest NewsX. Follow us on social media Facebook, Twitter(X), Gettr and subscribe our Youtube Channel.
