New Delhi [India], May 15 (HBTV): In response to the Supreme Court's April 8 verdict imposing deadlines on the Governor and the President for acting on state Bills in the Tamil Nadu government versus Governor case, President Droupadi Murmu has questioned the constitutional validity of such a directive, asserting that the Constitution does not prescribe any specific time frames.

The President’s response underscores that Article 200 of the Constitution outlines the powers of the Governor and procedures for assenting to, withholding, or reserving state Bills for presidential consideration. However, it does not mandate any timeline within which the Governor must act.

Similarly, Article 201 governs the President’s authority to grant or withhold assent to Bills reserved by the Governor, but it too does not lay down any specific deadlines or procedural constraints.

The discretionary powers conferred on the Governor and the President under Articles 200 and 201 are influenced by several constitutional principles, including federalism, legal uniformity, national security, and the doctrine of separation of powers. The Constitution also stipulates that in many cases, a state law cannot come into effect without prior presidential assent.

Adding to the legal complexity, the Supreme Court has issued conflicting judgments on whether presidential assent under Article 201 is subject to judicial review. Many states have been approaching the Supreme Court under Article 32 instead of Article 131, raising federal questions that demand constitutional interpretation, the President pointed out.

President Murmu also noted that the scope of Article 142—particularly when applied to matters governed by constitutional or statutory provisions—requires careful scrutiny. She added that the concept of 'deemed assent' contradicts the constitutional design by undermining the discretionary roles of the President and the Governor.

Given the unresolved legal questions and their national importance, the President has invoked Article 143(1) of the Constitution, referring a set of critical questions to the Supreme Court for its opinion. These include what constitutional options are available to a Governor when presented with a Bill under Article 200, whether the Governor is bound by the advice of the Council of Ministers while acting under Article 200, and whether the Governor’s exercise of discretion under this Article is subject to judicial review.

The questions further seek clarity on whether Article 361 bars judicial scrutiny of a Governor’s actions under Article 200, whether courts can prescribe timelines or procedures despite the constitutional silence on the matter, and whether the President’s discretion under Article 201 is subject to judicial review. They also include whether courts can impose deadlines or procedures on the President, whether the President is required to seek a Supreme Court opinion under Article 143 while deciding on reserved Bills, and whether decisions made under Articles 200 and 201 are justiciable before a Bill becomes law.

Additionally, the reference includes whether the judiciary can use Article 142 to alter the constitutional powers of the Governor or President, whether a state law can come into effect without the Governor’s assent under Article 200, whether constitutional interpretation cases must be mandatorily referred to a five-judge bench under Article 145(3), whether the Supreme Court’s powers under Article 142 extend to issuing directives that conflict with existing constitutional or legal provisions, and whether the Constitution permits dispute resolution between the Union and states outside the mechanism of Article 131.

By raising these fundamental questions, President Murmu seeks judicial clarity on the constitutional limits of executive and judicial authority, highlighting the importance of interpretative guidance on matters of national significance.

(ANI)