KKN Gurugram Desk | In an extraordinary constitutional development, President Droupadi Murmu has raised formal objections to the Supreme Court’s April 8 judgment that imposed time-bound decision-making on Governors and the President regarding bills passed by state legislatures.
Article Contents
Citing serious concerns over constitutional balance, federal integrity, and the separation of powers, the President has invoked Article 143(1) of the Constitution, seeking the apex court’s opinion on 14 fundamental constitutional questions. This rare move underscores deep friction between the executive and the judiciary regarding interpretation of executive discretion and judicial authority.
Supreme Court’s April 8 Ruling: A Quick Recap
On April 8, 2025, a Supreme Court bench—comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan—issued a landmark ruling stipulating fixed timelines for state Governors and the President to act on state legislative bills.
Key mandates from the ruling:
Governors must decide on a bill within three months: They can either give assent or return the bill for reconsideration.
If a re-passed bill is sent again by the Assembly, the Governor must approve it within one month.
If the bill is reserved for the President, the President must decide within three months.
A failure to act within the timeline may be interpreted as “deemed assent”.
President Murmu’s Objection: “Judiciary Overstepping Constitutional Limits”
President Murmu termed the ruling “unconstitutional and intrusive”, asserting that it violates the spirit and text of the Constitution. She strongly disagreed with the notion of deemed assent, arguing that:
“There is no constitutional provision under Article 200 or Article 201 that prescribes a time limit for the President or Governors to act on legislative bills.”
She emphasized that the President and Governors possess discretionary powers, and imposing deadlines infringes upon their executive independence and federal authority.
What is Article 143(1)?
Article 143(1) empowers the President to seek the opinion of the Supreme Court on questions of law or fact that are of public importance or involve constitutional interpretation.
Though rarely used, President Murmu has exercised this provision to challenge the Supreme Court’s judgment in an indirect and consultative way rather than filing a review petition. The government reportedly felt that a review would likely go back to the same bench, reducing the chances of reversal.
The Federal Dilemma: Article 131 vs Article 32
The President raised another constitutional concern—the frequent use of Article 32 by state governments in disputes that actually pertain to centre-state federal disagreements, which should constitutionally fall under Article 131.
Article 32:
Meant for individuals to protect their fundamental rights.
Article 131:
Exclusively empowers the Supreme Court to adjudicate legal disputes between states and the Centre.
President Murmu questioned:
“Why are state governments bypassing Article 131 and approaching the court under Article 32 on matters that are fundamentally federal in nature?”
Legal experts agree that this practice could lead to misuse of judicial processes and erosion of constitutional balance.
On Article 142: “Can’t Override Explicit Constitutional Provisions”
President Murmu also objected to the Supreme Court’s interpretation and use of Article 142, which allows the apex court to pass orders for complete justice in any case. While acknowledging the court’s role, she stressed that:
“Where the Constitution or law already provides clear procedures and frameworks, Article 142 should not be used to override or reinterpret them.”
Legal scholars have previously warned that the expansive use of Article 142 could create institutional overreach, especially in matters where legislative or executive discretion is central.
Key Constitutional Questions Raised by the President
According to official sources, President Murmu has sought answers to the following types of constitutional issues:
Can the judiciary prescribe timelines to executive authorities when the Constitution does not?
Does the concept of deemed assent violate executive discretion?
What are the limits of Article 142, and can it override Articles 200 and 201?
Can Article 32 be used by state governments in federal disputes?
Should Article 143(1) be used more frequently to resolve inter-institutional tensions?
These questions are expected to be heard by a larger Constitution Bench, which may either reaffirm or reinterpret the court’s original April ruling.
Background: What Do Articles 200 and 201 Say?
These articles lay down the procedures for the Governor and the President regarding assent to bills:
Article 200 allows a Governor to:
Give assent
Withhold assent
Reserve the bill for the President
Article 201 governs the President’s power to:
Assent to the bill
Withhold assent
Return the bill (if not a money bill)
Neither article mentions a specific time frame, thereby making the President’s objection constitutionally significant.
Legal Reactions: A Nation-Wide Debate Sparks
The legal fraternity is divided over President Murmu’s intervention:
Supporters of the President’s stance argue that judicial activism must have constitutional boundaries and that executive discretion, especially in sensitive legislative matters, must be protected.
Critics say that delays by Governors and the President have obstructed state-level governance, and the court’s ruling was intended to ensure legislative efficiency.
The Bigger Picture: Executive vs Judiciary?
This episode marks a rare institutional pushback by the President of India against a ruling of the Supreme Court. It reflects growing concerns in India’s constitutional system about the balance of powers and the role of constitutional conventions vs judicial mandates.
If the Supreme Court responds to Article 143(1) with clarifications or amendments to its earlier judgment, it may set a new precedent for coordination between the judiciary, executive, and legislature.
President Droupadi Murmu’s invocation of Article 143(1) and her strong remarks against the Supreme Court’s April verdict mark a watershed moment in India’s constitutional discourse. Her objections raise profound questions about:
Discover more from KKN Live
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.