Context:

Supreme Court of India recently issued notices to the Centre and all states after President Droupadi Murmu made a formal reference under Article 143(1) of the Constitution. The President has sought the apex court’s opinion on a contentious matter: whether the timelines for assent to state Bills, set by a recent Supreme Court ruling, are legally valid and binding on the President and Governors.

Background:

On April 8, 2025, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court delivered a landmark verdict against Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi, declaring his withholding of assent to 10 Bills (later referred to the President) as "illegal and erroneous." The Court laid down for the first time that:

• The Governor must act on a Bill "as soon as possible"
• Once a Bill is reserved for the President’s consideration (Article 201), a decision must be taken within three months
• If delayed, reasons must be recorded and conveyed

While seen as promoting legislative efficiency, this ruling raised alarms in the Union Executive, prompting the President to refer 14 constitutional questions to a Constitution Bench under Article 143(1).

Key Constitutional Questions Raised by the President

1.       Justiciability of Discretion: Can the President’s or Governor’s discretion under Articles 200 and 201 be reviewed by courts in the absence of specific timelines?

2.      Scope of Judicial Powers: Can courts prescribe timelines for constitutional authorities when the Constitution itself is silent on such matters?

3.      Role of Article 142: Can the Court use its extraordinary powers under Article 142 to interfere in functions reserved for the executive?

4.     Binding Nature of Council of Ministers’ Advice: Is the Governor bound by the advice of the state’s Council of Ministers in assenting to or withholding a Bill?

5.     Deemed Assent Debate: Is the concept of automatic or deemed assent constitutional, especially when the Constitution doesn't provide for it?

Legal & Constitutional Significance

This reference has triggered a re-examination of the balance of power among the executive, legislature, and judiciary. It brings to the fore:

• The delicate federal relationship between the Centre and States
• The limits of judicial activism
• Whether the Supreme Court can interpret constitutional silences as mandates

The Supreme Court’s earlier judgment filled a constitutional vacuum by judicially crafting timelines. But critics argue that this amounts to judicial overreach, as neither Article 200 nor 201 mentions any timeframe.