In a significant move, President Droupadi Murmu has made a 14-point reference to the Supreme Court under Article 143 of the Constitution, seeking its advisory opinion on crucial questions surrounding the role and discretion of Governors and the President with respect to pending State Bills.

Central to the reference is whether the Supreme Court can prescribe a three-month timeline for the President to act on a Bill reserved by a Governor under Article 201, in the absence of any explicit constitutional time limit.

The reference follows the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in the Tamil Nadu Governor matter delivered on April 8 by Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan. In that case, the Court found the prolonged inaction of Governor R.N. Ravi on 10 Bills—some pending since January 2020—as “illegal and erroneous,” ultimately holding that these Bills were deemed to have received assent due to the Governor’s unjustified delay.

This reference marks the first instance where the President has formally sought the Supreme Court’s advice on such a matter. The President’s queries span a range of constitutional interpretations related to Articles 200 and 201, and touch upon broader issues like judicial review, constitutional timelines, and the extent of discretionary powers. The 14 questions posed are as follows:

1. Governor's Options under Article 200: What constitutional options are available to a Governor when a Bill is presented under Article 200?

2. Aid and Advice: Is the Governor bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers while exercising his options under Article 200?

3. Justiciability of Governor’s Discretion: Is the Governor’s exercise of discretion under Article 200 subject to judicial review?

4. Article 361 and Judicial Review: Does Article 361 impose an absolute bar on judicial review of a Governor’s actions under Article 200?

5. Timelines by Judiciary: In the absence of a constitutional timeline or prescribed manner for exercising powers, can the judiciary impose timelines or prescribe procedures for the Governor’s powers under Article 200?

6. Justiciability of President’s Discretion: Is the President’s exercise of discretion under Article 201 justiciable?

7. Judicial Prescription of Timelines for President: In the absence of a constitutional timeline, can the judiciary impose deadlines or prescribe the manner in which the President should act under Article 201?

8. Need for Reference under Article 143: Is the President constitutionally required to seek the Supreme Court’s advice under Article 143 when a Bill is reserved for her assent by a Governor?

9. Pre-Enactment Judicial Review: Are the decisions of the Governor and President under Articles 200 and 201 justiciable before the Bill becomes law? Can courts examine the content of a Bill before it receives assent?

10. Substitution of Constitutional Powers under Article 142: Can the Supreme Court invoke Article 142 to substitute or override the constitutional powers or decisions of the President or Governor?

11. Status of State Bills without Assent: Is a Bill passed by the State Legislature considered a law in force without the Governor’s assent under Article 200?

12. Mandatory Referral to Constitution Bench: Under the proviso to Article 145(3), must the Court refer matters involving substantial constitutional questions to a Constitution Bench of at least five judges?

13. Scope of Article 142: Are the Supreme Court’s powers under Article 142 limited to procedural matters, or can the Court issue directions/orders contrary to substantive or procedural constitutional provisions or existing law?

14. Jurisdiction to Resolve Union-State Disputes: Does the Constitution bar the Supreme Court from using any jurisdiction other than Article 131 to resolve disputes between the Union and State governments?

This reference is poised to have far-reaching implications on the relationship between the Centre and States, the autonomy of constitutional authorities like Governors and the President, and the role of the judiciary in ensuring constitutional accountability in legislative processes.