President Murmu flags SC overreach, seeks clarity on assent timelines

Amid escalating friction between the executive and the judiciary, President Droupadi Murmu has invoked Article 143 of the Constitution to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion on 14 key legal questions concerning the roles and powers of the President and Governors. These queries focus particularly on whether the top court can impose timelines on constitutional authorities for granting assent to bills, and the extent of its powers under Article 142 to ensure “complete justice".

The move follows a recent Supreme Court judgment in the Tamil Nadu Governor case, which directed that a decision on reserved bills be taken within three months. Questioning the court’s authority to set such deadlines, President Murmu asked, “How can Supreme Court put a timeline when the Constitution does not?”

India Today TV accessed a list of the questions submitted to the court. Some of the key issues raised include:

-Can the Supreme Court’s powers under Article 142 override the constitutional roles of the President and Governors?

-Are state governments exploiting the court’s “plenary powers” to challenge the Centre?

-Is it constitutionally valid to impose a timeline on the President or Governor to act on a bill?
-Are decisions made by a Governor under Article 200 subject to judicial review?

In addition to the President’s move, the Centre has described the Supreme Court’s April 8 order as “clear overreach” and has requested the formation of a Constitution Bench to resolve the matter. The order in question had set deadlines for the President and the Governor of Tamil Nadu to act on ten bills passed by the state legislature, which had been pending without executive approval.

Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar also expressed serious reservations about the ruling, calling it an instance of “judicial overreach”. He remarked, “We never bargained for democracy for this day. The President being called upon to decide in a time-bound manner, and if not, the bills become law.”

The Supreme Court had criticised the Tamil Nadu Governor for excessive delays in processing state legislation and clarified that when a bill is reserved for the President under Article 201, a decision must be taken within three months. The court emphasised that the President does not have a “pocket veto”, implying that prolonged inaction is not constitutionally permissible.